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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 11:57, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

EasyMail[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. Not to be confused with any of the products of a similar name. The WP:COI is obvious. Kleuske (talk) 11:47, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 11:53, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there,I have just created an article which simply described a software solution called EasyMail. This is the URL: [[1]]. The page described - what features offers this software products, what is its history and what technologies are used. BUT I received an email saying that the article will be deleted. Why is that? Please give me further explanation because I need to know what is wrong with my article. I have seen many articles like this one which follow the same architecture and type of content and I didn't know that I do something wrong.

There are two main source which can be used as a proof of my words. The first one is the website of the project which is [[2]]. Another source which is even more reliable is the GitHub repository [[3]]. On the website is described what the product offers and also in the GitHub repository can be seen everything which is developed since 2015. The project has three contributors and 35 different people are following it. Also, the project has been presented to Mailjet during this event here [[4]]. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pavel.tashev (talk • contribs) 12:19, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Pavel.tashev: Coverage in subject independent reliable sources (eg. reviews in published/online magazines, chapters in books about this application not written by its developers etc.) is needed to estabilish notability. Project website and GitHub repository are self-published sources not useable to prove notability. Pavlor (talk) 09:16, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete its a pretty generic name, and the sources that I can find do not appear to be talking about this product, and the products that they are talking about might not even be notable. In short, it fails our general notability guideline and the post above combined with information on the site make it pretty clear this is a promotional article. TonyBallioni (talk) 15:01, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete Pure advertising of non notable product. Theroadislong (talk) 21:04, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No citations that provide evidence of notability. My own searches have also found none. And any article using "solution" in its PR sense, twice in the first two sentences, was probably written by a marketing person. Maproom (talk) 22:30, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as spam. Also fails WP:GNG AND WP:NSOFTWARE. Joseph2302 (talk) 06:24, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No significant reliable coverage.CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 19:32, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Although the article has a snowball's chance in hell of being kept, I don't think it'd fall under the CSD for promotional content. There's a few promotional sentences but not enough to be unambiguously advertising. Anarchyte (work | talk) 07:58, 19 April 2017 (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.