Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/YAM (Yet Another Mailer)

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 no consensus. Mango juice^talk 16:00, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

YAM (Yet Another Mailer)[edit]

Yet another mailer. Literally. No evidence of significance, user base or being the primary subject of multiple non-trivial coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject. Guy 11:41, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ironic delete - fails to assert notability. MER-C 11:58, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: I would say "The 2.2 version was then also rated as the best e-mail client for Amiga computers back in 1998." is an assertion of notability. Cheers --Pak21 12:20, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Rather a small pond, that. And by whom, anyway? Guy 12:40, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - That's why it isn't an assertion of notability, because I can say that without revealing that I made it up or any evidence whatsoever to back it up. If it were sourced, yes.MER-C 14:03, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
this is a full-length magazine review in Svet Kompjutera by Nikola Smolenski. this is a personal review by Adam Hough. this is one paragraph in AMIGA-Magazin by Uwe Röhm. this is third-party documentation for YAM written by Jérome Chappuis in March 2002 and published in Obligement. this (see pages 24 and 25) is a medium-length magazine review in issue 3 of Total Amiga. Uncle G 14:52, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The program has been mentioned in several Amiga magazines as the best Amiga mail client ever. JIP | Talk 16:46, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, JIP

Delete notability is asserted, but not evidenced. We need more precise references than "mentioned in several Amiga magazines", and I'd happily reconsider if the evidence is produced. --BrownHairedGirl ^{(talk) • (contribs)} 12:22, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- It has already been produced, and is right there immediately above. Uncle G 15:16, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep b/c i have heard of it. PFA 01:08, 1 November 2006 (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.