Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/EPrompter

: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). I may attempt to include some of the sources mentioned below. American Eagle (talk) 02:39, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

=[[EPrompter]]=

:{{la|EPrompter}} ([{{fullurl:EPrompter|wpReason={{urlencode: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/EPrompter}}&action=delete}} delete]) – (View AfD)(View log)

Notability not established, written like an advertisement. Postoak (talk) 22:25, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Strong Keep - Needing cleanup is not a valid reason to delete and the software does have non-trivial coverage in multiple reliable sources. For example, [http://www.nytimes.com/2002/09/05/technology/with-a-single-click-a-vast-e-mail-harvest.html NY Times story], [http://www.pcworld.com/downloads/file/fid,8116-order,4-c,chatemailamptheweb/description.html?&page=4 PCWorld review], [http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A418-2005Feb5_2.html Washington post review], [http://www.usatoday.com/tech/columnist/kimkomando/2007-09-20-work-smarter_N.htm USAToday blurb], [http://media.www.jhunewsletter.com/media/storage/paper932/news/2002/03/29/Science/Eprompter.The.Best.EMail.Program.Ever-2248243.shtml John Hopkins' newsletter calling it the "best e-mail program ever"], and many many more: [http://news.google.com/archivesearch?um=1&ned=us&hl=en&q=EPrompter&cf=all]. It also made CNET's [http://www.prweb.com/releases/2005/11/prweb313731.htm "The Best Free Internet Software" list] --ThaddeusB (talk) 23:40, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- ThaddeusB (talk) 23:47, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
Keep, As Thaddeus showed it has independent non-trivial coverage from multiple sources. The article needs to be cleaned up and sourced but that is not a reason to delete. A new name 2008 (talk) 00:23, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
Keep Thaddeus' input confirms notability. Articles that read like advertisements can always be edited or rewritten. Pastor Theo (talk) 21:42, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
Keep - sources uncovered above establish notability. Advertising tone can be dealt with through editting. -- Whpq (talk) 18:56, 1 June 2009 (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.