Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/MagicMail

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. j⚛e decker ^talk 00:28, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

MagicMail[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No significant coverage in reliable sources independent of topic — notability of topic is not established. The article is written in promotional tone and relies on primary sources (including two reprints of press releases on third-party sites) and a single blog post with similarly promotional language and no depth of coverage. Of 143 revisions of the article 136 are by two editors with no significant edit history outside this article. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 21:22, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. 21:28, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Delete - I am unable to find reliable, independent sources that discuss the subject in any detail. Fails WP:GNG.- Mr X 21:45, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above - No evidence of notability. —Davey2010→ ✉ - 01:50, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:41, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - software article of unclear notability, lacking significant coverage in multiple reliable sources. The only possibly independent ref used in the article is the thewhir.com reference, which on its own is not sufficient. Per nom, article was created by an SPA as possibly promotional.Dialectric (talk) 08:34, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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.