Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cone (e-mail client)

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 DELETE. I really don't get persuaded by "but we have other articles that I might not like" kind of arguments, since we're talking about this article. That said, the case for deletion is weakly made and I imagine an efficient, well-referenced article would probably survive if this software becomes noticed in future. -Splash^talk 23:20, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Cone (e-mail client)

No evidence of wisdespread use, market share, user base, coverage in reliable sources, innovation or any other form of significance. Just zis Guy you know? 22:33, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

• Delete, per Mr. Guy. "Pine-like" and "innovative" would seem to be mutually exclusive terms. Kuru ^talk 02:11, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Unremarkable. -- Krash (Talk) 18:56, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Kuru. Stifle 11:54, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. I have not seen any objective userbase numbers implying that Cone is significantly less significant than many (or even just some) other e-mail clients known to Wikipedia. As for innovation, Cone may have a user interface similar to Pine, but anyone claiming that Cone isn't innovative in the text-based e-mail client sector just doesn't know what they're talking about. -- Julian Mehnle 22:41, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

• That's an argument for removing others, not keeping this one :-) Just zis Guy you know? 11:05, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

• So it appears that you are saying that this entire field is insignificant.--SCooley138 21:27, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. Needs expanding.

• Elm, Mutt, Pine, and probably ELMo all have similar interfaces. This does not preclude innovation as all of these clients have different feature sets. I believe that Cone actually has the largest feature set, and has some that are unique to text mode email clients.

• Second, it is under active development and Does have a userbase. This is more than can be said about at least one of the other clients listed here, which is quite dead and won't even compile on current version GLIBC.

• Does not fall under any of the categories which require deletion, nor does it meet any of criteria that mark it as indiscriminant information. SCooley138 20:58, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Rewrite

With the permission of the author, I used a lot of text from the official website to better describe the subject. Please, those of you who have voted for deletion, give it a second read, and reconsider. SCooley138 11:00, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

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.