Deletion of Foxmail

Comment: Clearly notable per , and there is already a reasonable article with pointers to many resources in Chinese and one each in English, French and Dutch. Articles like this one are very important for system administrators with no command of Chinese who are trying to figure out what to do about non-standard emails produced with this client, so I really can't understand why anyone would want to delete this in spite of obvious notability
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG)

Comment: meets . I think the language issues could be overcome, and do not represent a valid reason for deletion
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG)

Comment: Meets 
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG)

Comment: I'm changing my vote.  I've agreed all along that the sources are sufficient to meet .  I continue to question the practicality and likelihood of producing a worthwhile encyclopedic article in English when every meaningful secondary source is in another language.  I think this is likely to end up either largely unverifiable to most users or based pretty much only on the primary sources.  But I concede this is strictly an editorial problem and that (a) it's entirely possible I'm too pessimistic and (b) the editorial problem is irrelevant to this decision at AfD.Finally, I will add that ''to me'', the complaints of possible bias looked more like examples of it than anything else.  For me, it wouldn't have mattered if the sources were in the one other language I ''can'' read (sort of); I'd still have had the same concerns.  And I agreed with the "better in China" remark ''as I understood it'', namely, a wry, ironic observation that it'd be a simpler question if the resulting article was supposed to be in Chinese as well, the same as the sources.  We should be able to talk about these things without chilling the room.  I'd have appreciated better demonstration of 
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG||WP:AGF)