Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/TouchMail


 * 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:07, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

TouchMail

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

A promotional article on the email app of a new start-up, with no indication of its relevance besides the founders being former Microsoft employees. Most references are PRs. Willkey77 (talk) 15:05, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 08:53, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 08:53, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 08:53, 29 December 2013 (UTC)


 *  Weak Keep. The Time source appears to qualify as the first reliable independent secondary source.  It clearly offers the writer's own thoughts and is not just routine coverage of a press release.  The CITE World source is less compelling but sufficient as a second source.  CITE World (note the redlink) certainly doesn't have the reputation for fact-checking and editorial control that Time has but it's published by IDG, which does have that reputation.  Msnicki (talk) 17:51, 29 December 2013 (UTC)


 * While the Time source is really strong and focused on the subject, the second source seems very weak, but this might be just my own impression. Willkey77 (talk) 12:21, 30 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Good points. It's not like we're discussing the notability of Microsoft Windows.  I do wonder about whether either of these sources fully establishes the enduring notability asked by WP:NOTNEWS.  Otoh, I've just gotten my head slapped pretty badly in the last few days arguing for deletion ([1], [2]) of what seemed to me to be blatantly promotional articles supported by absolutely no reliable independent secondary sources talking about the subject whatsoever.  In that second AfD, the best source anyone has found is an obvious wiki page, but other editors like it because it's on an encyclopedia site.  So I feel like I'm recalibrating.  Msnicki (talk) 18:40, 30 December 2013 (UTC)


 * On reflection, especially over the question of WP:NOTNEWS, I'm changing to weak keep. Msnicki (talk) 18:15, 31 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 04:43, 4 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep, nice amount of discussion among references. &mdash; Cirt (talk) 05:37, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
 * There are 4 references of which one is a press release and one is a link to the Microsoft app store. IMHO the remaining two are the only ones worth a discussion and of those two only one is really focused on the subject. Willkey77 (talk) 11:10, 5 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Weak Keep I also found http://finance.yahoo.com/news/touchmail-inc-launches-touchmail-modern-040100710.html and http://www.winrtsource.com/2013/04/25/excellent-mail-app-for-microsoft-surface-touchmail-preview/ . Not sure if the second meets RS. Those with two of the refs in the article (Time and Marketwire) seem to help it meet notability guidelines. I'm also hoping that the product will garner more press over time. Walter Görlitz (talk) 07:42, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep References are sufficient. DavidLeighEllis (talk) 20:58, 11 January 2014 (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.