Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Forté Agent

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. Consensus was to keep, only argument for deletion was made by nominator. (non-admin closure) Onel5969 ^{TT me} 17:14, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Forté Agent

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not notable and contains little if any encyclopedic content. Appears to fail Wikipedia's General notability guideline. FockeWulf FW 190 (talk) 01:01, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Half page review in NetworkWorld (July 28, 1997, p. 54), less than half page review in Computer Power User (January 2005, p. 73), multiple page review in PC Mag (won Shareware awards 1996; September 10, 1996, pp. 260, 261, 264, 266). There are also short news in other magazines. Plenty of coverage in reliable sources. I will try to improve the article, if I find the time. Pavlor (talk) 09:48, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Dialectric (talk) 09:49, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – This is a leading Usenet newsgroup reader program for Windows. It has a long history and it's widely covered in the computer press which of course has diminished over several years together with the decline of Usenet and NNTP itself. Deleting articles because of decreasing relevance is unencyclopedic – WP:RECENTISM works both ways. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 09:56, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:59, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Pavlor and Michael Bednarek have said it better than I could. Not just used for Usenet. Back before the rise of Twitter etc, there were privately run newsgroup communities based on NNTP, and my impression was that Forte Agent was the client that almost everyone used. Gpc62 (talk) 06:52, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There is very little to actually suggest notability of the subject. Checking some references, some seem to be unreliable/self-published. Example: www.newsgroupreviews.com/forte-agent. The sources are required to be reliable according to Wikipedia's policies. See Wikipedia:Verifiability, Wikipedia:No original research.

@FockeWulf FW 190: Notability of the article subject is not based only on references used in the article. Please, check sources I provided above... Pavlor (talk) 05:22, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Pavlor: My concern is the notability and references along with maintaining a neutral point of view.

Google searches provided very little sources which could be considered reliable, some books also made some trivial mentions too.

Adding reliable references would address the issues on why the article should be deleted.FockeWulf FW 190 (talk) 18:31, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – See also this nominator's AfD for Forté Internet Software. Pointy? -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 06:11, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - for once a piece of software that, back in the day, even I have heard of (not that that's a criterion for retention). I think it's relevant to the history of Usenet, so was surprised there was no mention there. That said, it has been a challenge to find evidence to show that WP:NSOFTWARE has been met. There are recommendations of Forte Agent as a good alternative to Outlook Express on Google Scholar, suggesting this old software probably meets the guideline's description of "software with significant historical or technical importance (e.g. Visicalc) are notable even if they are no longer in widespread use or distribution." By contrast, I am unconvinced that the article on its makers, Forté Internet Software, which has been unreferenced for the last 5 years, merits the same benefit of the doubt. (@FockeWulf FW 190: - please sign all your comments so we know who is making contributions, please). Nick Moyes (talk) 09:26, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Another PC Mag review (in cover story about newsgroup readers, this time commercial version): October 8, 1996, pp. 164-165. Pavlor (talk) 12:46, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Another source, half page article in Maximum PC magazine (part of bigger article about "favorite applications and utilities of 2002"; January 2003, p. 58). Pavlor (talk) 05:50, 6 October 2017 (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.