Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/TouchMail (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 keep. – filelakeshoe (t / c) &#xF0F6;  14:44, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

TouchMail
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Article fails general notability requirements WP:GNG. 50% of the sources happen to be press releases thus being unreliable WP:V. Article is also written from a mostly promotional tone of view as well WP:PROMOTION. FockeWulf FW 190 (talk) 18:52, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:55, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:55, 17 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Weak keep. The other 50% of the sources (n.b. there are two sources at the moment) is a Time magazine article about the software. There's a lot of hits from a WP:BEFORE (like this NextWeb article and numerous Geekwire articles. I'm also at a loss as to how the tone of this article could be read as promotional. It is four very blandly descriptive sentences—if I hired someone to promote me and they came back with an article like this I'd refuse to pay.  A  Train talk 20:11, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
 * CORPSPAM Provides a good points on articles like this one. Although it is not a policy it provides several good points. FockeWulf FW 190 (talk) 18:48, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
 * For example... ?  A  Train talk 15:30, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Copied from CORPSPAM: "Most of companies and product pages I nominate for deletion have several, if not dozens of inline references. Many are to their own pages (in other words – self-published), but quite a few are masked better. It is quite common for slightly smarter artspammers to use other websites – such services are cheaply offered by various PR companies, who maintain extensive portals filled with dime-a-dozen press releases such as PRWeb, many of them are distributed through news sites and appear in search engine results, giving them a surface appearance of legitimacy."
 * "Let me now define spam in the context of this op-ed as advertisements masquerading as articles (in short, artspam) rather than external links spamming. The latter is more easily identifiable through automated tools, and Wikipedia:WikiProject Spam and others seem to be managing it well enough, as far as I can tell. What I am concerned with is the former: articles that fail notability criteria, aiming to promote a certain topic, not (only) through biased wording, but through their very existence ("I/we/our product is/are on Wikipedia, hence we are important/respectable/famous/encyclopedic")." FockeWulf FW 190 (talk) 00:51, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Keep It has notability. Editor-1 (talk) 08:10, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Bobherry  Talk   Edits  13:09, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep per User:A Train's analysis. Coverage at TheNextWeb and Geekwire in addition to the Time article is enough to clear the bar.  gongshow  talk  01:54, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment Article was created by a sock-puppet too, but has some other edits which do not make it fit CSD G5 according to policy. (G5. Creations by banned or blocked users) FockeWulf FW 190 (talk) 00:51, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Repurpose. Why can't TouchMail be the initial entry for an annotated / List of / Comparison article?  Pi314m (talk) 09:45, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Perhaps people should see WP:Articles_for_deletion/GyazMail Keep @ 15:00, 26 October 2017 (UTC), who backs up comment of "Actually I perceive these recurring requests for deletion as aggravating and pointless trolling." and cites more sources. Pi314m (talk) 16:02, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Generally any item which does not have an article is removed/deleted from a comparison/list. FockeWulf FW 190 (talk) 17:08, 28 October 2017 (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.