Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hey (email service)


 * 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. Tone 09:04, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

Hey (email service)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

A two-months-old service, no indication of notability, refs are to informercials all published around the launch date. — kashmīrī  TALK  18:26, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. —  kashmīrī  TALK  18:26, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. —  kashmīrī  TALK  18:26, 25 August 2020 (UTC)


 * Comment There is a NYT article, a CNET article, and two Verge articles in the citations, that's more than just infomercials. Trevey-On-Sea (talk) 21:33, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Hope you will agree that (sponsored) media buzz generated for a product launch is not normally sufficient for the product to be included in an encyclopaedia. Especially for a two-months-old product. — kashmīrī  TALK  22:18, 25 August 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep meets WP:GNG per and . These are not "infomercials", nor do I find any indication that they are sponsored -- the even include some criticism. SD0001 (talk) 10:41, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
 * This is still as far from the required significant coverage as possible - the NYT article is an opinion piece while Inc.com has unclear reliability - tech journalists blogging about various software alone don't make it automatically eligible for inclusion in an encyclopaedia. — kashmīrī  TALK  07:35, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Ridiculous. The NYT article isn't an opinion piece. Its written by Brian X. Chen, described as the "lead consumer technology writer for The New York Times", which means that it's an independently-researched article by an expert in the field, making it a textbook example of a source required for WP:SIGCOV. Inc.com is a business magazine - is there a reason to suspect its reliability? You are just airily dismissing perfectly valid sources on whims. – SD0001  (talk) 17:38, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ Amkgp  💬  06:07, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep, because the coverage is non-trivial. All the sources currently in the article for the disagreement with Apple date from late June, but this matter is still rumbling on. A very perfunctory search turned up for example "'This isn't the 1990s': Apple under pressure from app developers" (Guardian; 30 August); as for the product itself, there's "The three worst things about email, and how to fix them" (Washington Post), with the teaser "You’ve got (too much) mail! A buzzy new service called Hey isn’t for everyone, but helps us see how we lost control of Gmail, Outlook and Yahoo Mail" -- so yes, it's all about Hey (and not about Apple). Hey is an unusually young service to get a Wikipedia article; but the article isn't promotional, and I don't know what's not to like. -- Hoary (talk) 07:52, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep there seems to be significant news coverage and meets WP:GNG. Basecamp already has it's page and is a well know project management software. At the worst case, this should be a Merge. Expertwikiguy (talk) 01:16, 8 September 2020 (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.