Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kerio MailServer

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The result was speedy keep — nomination withdrawn after discovery of a very recent good source for articles. Non-admin closure. MuZemike (talk) 04:34, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kerio MailServer[edit]

Article lacks significant reliable sources to meet the general notability guideline. In addition, article also fails WP:WEBHOST or WP:ADVERT (depending on how you look at it) because of the structure of the article. MuZemike (talk) 17:45, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have also nominated the following similar articles for deletion for the exact same reasons I have stated above:

MuZemike (talk) 17:50, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep for Kerio and Zimbra: Both are major players in the turnkey mail & groupware server market. Both widely reviewed in mainstream IT publications as serious competitors to MS Exchange. The articles could be improved but neither is remotely spammy.
Weak keep for Scalix: Not as high profile as the other two but I have heard of it and it is used and taken seriously. Its HP pedigree surely counts for something? It isn't some random piece of non-notable freeware.
If I was looking to delete articles on non-notable software I certainly would not have started with these pretty major packages. --DanielRigal (talk) 22:20, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- VG ☎ 02:06, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep for all Only yesterday were Scalix and Zimbra seen in the news [1] and Kerio MailServer is industry recognised. The articles need improvement to bring them in line with the wikipedia guidelines. Deletion is not the answer. --Hm2k (talk) 02:15, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for the additional source. I gladly withdraw the nom. MuZemike (talk) 04:34, 6 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.