Talk:TrashMail

I don't see why Spamgourmet and Mailinator are not considered as spam if TrashMail is it? (Digitalsaf (talk) 20:41, 26 March 2008 (UTC))

Because you wrote the article so that it sounded like spam. Maybe read this and try agian? Beach drifter (talk) 20:46, 26 March 2008 (UTC)


 * All three products fall under the Web notability guideline. Spamgourmet and Mailinator both include sources that more or less assert notability for the product. Trashmail however, contains no sources other then its own website. Perhaps the speedy deletion tag was over the top though, as prodding this might have been much more appropriate. Excirial ( Talk, Contribs ) 20:50, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Spamgourmet: Ok for the notability, they were the first to invent disposable email addresses. For mailinator: It has been created one year after TrashMail. Even Jetable.org ist more recent than Mailinator. TrashMail was the second free known disposable email address in the world after Spamgourmet. Digitalsaf (talk) 21:21, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Do you have any reliable sources? J Milburn (talk) 21:24, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Your missing the point. It's all about sources! Really, read that link up there I gave you, eerr... this one.


 * Sources: 17200 Usenet posts by TrashMail.net addresses: http://groups.google.de/groups?q=%22trashmail.net%22&start=0&scoring=d&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&, 371 Blog reviews TrashMail: http://blogsearch.google.de/blogsearch?hl=en&um=1&ie=UTF-8&scoring=d&q=%22trashmail.net%22&btnG=Search+Blogs, Review of the TrashMail Add-On: https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/reviews/display/1813, they are also several press sites and TV shows providing information about TrashMail in different languages. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Digitalsaf (talk • contribs) 21:30, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
 * None of those are reliable. Please take a look at our guidelines. If you have not provided any reliable sources in ten minutes, I am deleting the article. J Milburn (talk) 21:40, 26 March 2008 (UTC)