Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Scalix


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.  

The result of the debate was keep (no consensus). Sjakkalle (Check!)  09:41, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Scalix
Software product, scores <400 unique Googles. No evidence of significant user base, innovative features or notable customers. Just zis Guy you know? 22:43, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. I get about 400k hits on google.  Many reviews including ones on pcmag, desktoplinux, zdnet.  Likely have userbase >5000.  I think this one is ok.  [[Image:Monkeyman.png]]Monkeyman(talk) 22:48, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment: There are less than 400 unique hits out of those 300,000 + hits. User:Zoe|(talk) 00:03, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Zoe is correct. I checked, there are some forums, a lot of ads and press releases, but not much of substance that I could find.  It doesn't seem to be publicly quoted, I coldn't find verifiable detail on the financial size of the company and I didn't see a list of notable customers, or a figure for the number of employees. Obviously I was going through a list, knocking out redlinks and looking for spam.  When you look for spam you tend to find it - I am always happy to be proved wrong. Just zis Guy you know? 10:08, 23 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment. Guy/Zoe, please reconsider your vote.  There are tons of press releases on this software      .  This would meet WP:SOFTWARE Criteria 1.  [[Image:Monkeyman.png]]Monkeyman(talk) 15:29, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
 * So we can decide on the notability of a corporation by the number of press releases it generates? User:Zoe|(talk) 23:21, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
 * WP:SOFTWARE Criteria 1 says, "The software has been verifiably the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the software developer itself." How does this software not meet this criteria?  I'm not affiliated with this software in any way whatsoever but I hate to see an article that deserves to be here get deleted.  [[Image:Monkeyman.png]]Monkeyman(talk) 23:40, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Press releases are generated by the company, therefore do not qualify for your criterion. User:Zoe|(talk) 20:56, 24 February 2006 (UTC)


 * As above, 'likely has enough users' does not swing it. Delete per JzG.    Proto    ||    type    11:59, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. What's the source of a press release? The company. Not independent, whatsoever. Stifle 09:38, 24 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I vote Delete. If OpenMail, on which it is based, and which is/was used by a high percentage of Fortune 500 companies doesn't rate an article, this certainly doesn't.--Zooterkin 13:11, 27 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep. Just because one article does not yet have an article (and OpenMail should) does not mean another article shouldn't. -Tim Rhymeless (Er...let's shimmy) 08:20, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

'This AfD is being relisted to generate a clearer consensus. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks! Deathphoenix' 15:29, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment: For the edification of voters this time around, the "unique google hits" cited by the nom mean absolutely nothing here. Microsoft only gets about 500-600 on an average day. There is no topic anywhere that would not get three figures of "unique" Google hits, tops, by this reading. — Adrian~enwiki (talk) 21:18, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep, 400 unique hits is plenty. I believe 1,000 unique hits is technically impossible. Kappa


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.