Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/MyPersonalEmail.com

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 of the debate was delete. Flowerparty☀ 07:23, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] MyPersonalEmail.com

Not notable, no support, poorly written, certain editors are making blatant attempts to spam web-mail based articles to advertise. Website does not appear to live up to article, to say the least. Lakhim 22:39, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

• • Contributer has provided sorurce from www.prweb.com. I don't feel that this constitutes a proper source, can anyone confirm? --Lakhim 19:22, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, non-notable, not a popular site, fails WP:WEB. Also the article is poorly written (as the nom says) and seems too POVish. Alexa rank of 2,648,860. —Mets501^talk 22:47, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, but I repectfully disagree. MyPersonalEmail.com is a noted old school, free email site. See Tulsa World Newspaper, October 28-2001. This article is as informational as any web mail provider, with less fluff and just fact. Alexa is not the know all of the internet. Millions of users in 140 countries are hard to argue with.

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_deletion/MyPersonalEmail.com"

• Can we have an online source? --Lakhim 23:44, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Sure, go the http://www.tulsaworld.com and do a search, it's all there, online and in print. The writer at the World was NICOLE NASCENZI and a seach of their site shows 5 or so articles: You cannot cut and paste the link because they use VBSscrips, so you have to search the archives

Can we please get a cut and paste summary or a screenshot of forementioned article? I don't buy this, nor do I suspect do many other wikipedians. --Lakhim 00:55, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

• I understand that you have one source. Although I cannot read the article (you need to purchase a subscription) it appears to be a good article. However, Wikipedia guidelines state that "The content itself has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself." Do you have any other published articles? —Mets501^talk 00:05, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
• I also cannot beleive that this site is one of the most popular email sites due to the "register here" link not working and displaying a 404 Page not found error. —Mets501^talk 00:07, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

• comment in IE the link works ok, but the link does not work in Firefox, which tells me it won't validate as W3C HTML J\/\/estbrook Talk VSCA  22:21, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Mets or who ever you are, it does not say register here, it says CLICK HERE and it works wonderfully, really, thousands have signed up today. How do you defend who you are? We know who we are, You are just plain wrong. You seem to have some other motive. Do you work for Microsoft? You have phoney pictures of yourself with Bill Gates. We emailed your gmail account, please reply and we will call you directly on the old fashioned internet, the telephone.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.38.5.90 (talk • contribs)

That was an unnecessary personal attack. I wrote to you on your talk page, please go there by clicking on this link. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mets501 (talk • contribs)

• Delete. The article reads like advertising, fails to assert notability, and doesn't meet the criteria of WP:WEB. While search engine results show that this service does show it does have a lot of use, a lot of that appears to be spam advertising the service (USENET is full of spam promoting this site). Fluit 00:35, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. More proof of notability needed before possible reconsideration. Jadriaen 01:12, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete: Unverifiable and spamvertising. --Chaser 02:08, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:WEB. I can't verify the source provided (searching www.tulsaworld.com for the author/site name didn't turn up any articles. I've tagged the article for wikification/sourcing in the event the consensus is keep.--Isotope23 12:43, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
• Neutral No assertion of notability, but the registration link seems to work (although I'm not going to answer the required questions.) — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 21:30, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
• I found the article that has been refered to by searching the Tulsa World Archives (search term "Tools of convenience" or Mypersonalemail.com). The article is dated Oct 28 2001. This by itself will not, in my opinion, pass muster on notability claims, therefore delete J\/\/estbrook Talk VSCA  22:16, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, spam. Ashibaka tock 22:26, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Obviously spamvertising. Bill (who is cool!) 22:30, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
• Comment you can use bugmenot.com to access those pesky websites that ask for registration/payment. M1ss1ontomars2k4 22:46, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
• But Delete if no reliable sources are found. --M1ss1ontomars2k4 22:46, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete unless verified WP:V, content has to be verifiable.--blue520 10:18, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete looks like advertising. --Happynoodleboy 15:06, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per the above. Gwernol 17:17, 12 May 2006 (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.