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 was Delete. Rjd0060 (talk) 17:11, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Doodlemail (Program) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

• Delete non-notable software. No 3rd party sources attest to notability Mayalld (talk) 09:35, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In its defence it's listed to distinguish it from the other Doodlemail, it's software from AT&T so presumably they're known to you (Wiki also has links to ZX Spectrum games and how 'notable' are they?), and it's independently mentioned in patents: http://www.patentstorm.us/patents/7003308/description.html. I find this incessant demand from anonymous sources to delete anything and everything they personally don't find notable to be baffling. It's not Windows Vista sure, but its worth keeping in. The creator's details are on his research page at AT&T:

HOWARD P KATSEFF

email: hpk@research.att.com

180 PARK AVE - BUILDING 103

FLORHAM PARK, NJ, 07932

Doodlemail (talk) 09:51, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nomination, no 3rd party sources to establish notability. Movingboxes (talk) 09:55, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete as blatant advertising and copyright violation. Alexius08 is welcome to talk about his contributions. 10:13, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete i tagged the article as a speedy before, but it seems the author removed the CSD template. Restored the CSD containing version Excirial ^{(Talk,Contribs)} 10:23, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The author did remove the Speedy Delete tag, but only after rewriting the information so that it was not a copywrite violation anymore. So even if the author had not removed it, the article would have failed to meet the speedy delete criteria, so it was appropriate for someone to remove the tag. I restored the non-copywrite version along with the removed AfD tag. Jons63 (talk) 15:58, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete article at present is basically spam (though possibly unintentional). Verifiability requires non-trivial coverage from reliable 3rd party sources. No prejudice again creation of a suitably encyclopedic article in future. Jasynnash2 (talk) 10:30, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as non-notable. By the way, all the Speccy games that have articles have been the subject of reviews in national publications, which estabilishes their notability. -- JediLofty ^User_Talk 12:27, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, per nom. Note: copyright issues have been addressed.--Esprit15d • talk • contribs 12:39, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as non-notable. The only sources available for the program are primary ones from AT&T, patent information on the program or ones where you can download the program. Couldn't find any links to reviews of the program or any third party information on the program. Jons63 (talk) 15:58, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note — User:Doodlemail has been indefinitely blocked from Wikipedia for spamming. MuZemike (talk) 18:04, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:21, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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.