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 Keep. NAC. Schuym1 (talk) 08:57, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gordano Messaging Suite[edit]

Contested speedy, db-spam. I am listing it here in order to get some opinions and maybe give the author a chence to improve the content. Procedural nomination, no opinion from my side. Tone 13:25, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- VG ☎ 14:05, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete, borderline speedy (G11). Either spam or clear failure of WP:WEBHOST. MuZemike (talk) 16:15, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination - non consumer software, and the only reviews cited are in online trade publications. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 16:25, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: This article appears not to be substantively different to the following articles - some of which have been present on Wikipedia for several years Kerio Scalix Zimbra in fact, the Gordano Messaging Suite contains fair less subjective language than these other examples. Either the Gordano Messaging Suite entry should stay, or these others should be deleted. In addition, the comment above about reviews being online trade publications is incorrect. PC Pro is a paper based end user consumer hardware and software magazine - published by Dennis Publishing Dob78 (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 16:39, 4 November 2008 (UTC). — Dob78 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

That is generally a bad argument to make. See WP:OTHERSTUFF, and WP:ALLORNOTHING. VG ☎ 17:34, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We'll gladly look at those for deletion, as well. Thanks for letting us know. MuZemike (talk) 22:35, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why are you glad to delete others work? It seems that there are several wikipedia editors that enjoy deleting.Amosygal (talk) 11:09, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I merely used those three as an example, Wikipedia contains a list of Mail servers, which contains between 35 and 40 mail server software packages. Almost every one of these servers is a commercial application similar in function to the Gordano Messaging Suite. It may be a "bad argument" but it's surely valid? If nearly 40 other wikipedia entries exist for commercial mail server software applications, then why should the Gordano Messaging Suite entry be deleted? Dob78 (talk) 17:17, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep --Ramu50 (talk) 19:29, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - If claims that it was the first mail server for the Windows platform can be verified, I see no reason to delete it. It is not spam unless I feel compelled to buy it and I am not feeling that now. Rilak (talk) 06:32, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The are now two reviews for the current version in the article (didn't check if they were there when it was nominated). One is by PC Pro. Reviews for older versions can be found as well, e.g. I found linuxplanet.com, PC Magazine, eweek.com in just a few minutes. The claim about being the 1st MTA for Win is probably correct, although I've marked it with^{[citation needed]}; the product was previously called NTMail, and I recall hearing of it in the NT era. VG ☎ 02:01, 9 November 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.