Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/SMEmail (2nd nomination)

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 delete. Stifle (talk) 19:21, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

SMEmail

Written the same way as the previous two versions that were speedily deleted as advertising, therefore possibly written by the same author though the user name is different. Advertising, no evidence of notability. Since the new Sutton reference isn't online I can't verify that it mentions SMEmail but as a data point there are no hits for {sutton smemail} in Google, Google Books, or Google Scholar. Google Scholar doesn't return hits for SMEmail at all. Google Books returns a bunch, but then for the individual books it says the term isn't found, so something's wrong. One of the books is a travel guide! —Largo Plazo (talk) 14:54, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

~~I'd forgotten that this article had been through Afd only a few months ago. I'm just going to db-repost it. —Largo Plazo (talk) 15:00, 15 February 2009 (UTC)~~[reply]

I just came across what an IP user wrote on the article's talk page about the foundational paper having been published by the IEEE. Does this now make the topic notable? The issue that the article is written like an ad remains, so if notability is now established it still needs to be sharply edited. —Largo Plazo (talk) 15:10, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I tried to extract a fact or two out of that advertisement, which reduced the article to a couple of sentences. The question of notability remains. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 05:10, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. -- —Largo Plazo (talk) 14:10, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This appears to be a research project with no established deployment; the paper is from only two months ago. Unlikely that this protocol has received significant coverage from multiple independent reliable sources at this stage. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 14:53, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. -- fr33k man -s- 15:50, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I can not find any sources to prove it is notable. It does seem like advertising. Frozenevolution (talk) 18:29, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep See the [SMEmail Page http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/xpl/freeabs_all.jsp?arnumber=4783292] on IEEEXplore to be sure about its notability. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.90.145.83 (talk) 07:55, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Is every topic that has ever been presented at a conference notable? —Largo Plazo (talk) 14:13, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 18:17, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now, as not enough sources are present. Recreate if it gains significant coverage.--DFS454 (talk) 18:47, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not enough sources. Many topics have been deleted which have far more mention on internet/tech forums too, I want to point out. Cazort (talk) 20:26, 20 February 2009 (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.