Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ippimail

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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 Delete. — Scientizzle 21:06, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ippimail

Ippimail (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Non-notable. Average PR [1], no Alexa rank [2]. Misterdiscreet 22:20, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

  • Keep - Assertion of notability lies within it being free and charitable. the_undertow talk 00:24, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
Free as an assertion of notability? Every open source project is free but wikipedia is not a directory of every single open source project ever made. Nor is it a directory of every single free email service provider out there.
And being charitable as an assertion of notability? Does that mean if I donate money to wikipedia, I get to get a wikipedia article, too? After all, I'm being charitable, aren't I?
Maybe if their charity, itself, becomes notable, a WP article would be prudent. Or if the website, itself, becomes notable. Right now however they're not notable and neither charity nor free service, by themselves, are sufficient. Misterdiscreet 06:59, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
I sense sarcasm when there really isn't any reason for it. Try not to take 'your' AfD personally. Your anecdote about donating to wiki is off-base. This software was designed, unlike most email, to directly put money in the hands of non-profits, thus giving it notability. You donating to wikipedia quite a poor analogy. An Alexa ranking is not a criteria used for keeping an article, so it really does no good. You asserted that ippimail is NN. However, I disagree. The sources I added to the article say that it is unique in the fact that many charities benefit from the use of this email. I provided sources, the article asserts its notability, and the content is verifiable and cited. 'Average PR and no Alexa rank' mean nothing in this process. the_undertow talk 09:22, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
High PR and high Alexa rank (past a certain point) certainly do mean something per WP:WEP. Average PR and no Alexa rank, I concede, doesn't necessarily mean much however uniqueness doesnt mean much, either. Most open source projects are probably unique in their own way. Same with most webcomics. None of that justifies having a wikipedia article for each one. Content by itself doesn't mean anything in this process either yet for this article you think it does? Misterdiscreet 12:32, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
It's not that content is what I am looking at. It appears to me that the article asserts why it is notable, and has reliable sources to back up that assertion. As much as you see this as an easy 'delete,' I see it as an easy keep. You should re-list this so we can get a better consensus. I think you and I are on different sides of the fence, which is fine, but I rather dislike when articles stay due to lack of consensus. I'd rather get snowed. the_undertow talk 06:25, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
Get snowed?
Anyways, if more people vote, there may be a clear consensus to keep - a consensus you contributed to. I may disagree with you but I don't think your opinions should be ignored, which is what a re-listing would basically do.. :\ Misterdiscreet 21:18, 4 July 2007 (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.