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. → Call me Hahc21 04:36, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Mailpin[edit]

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

Subject does not meet notability guidelines, and article appears as being slightly promotional. Subject appears very limitedly in sources, the best I could find being this Design Instruct article; not much beyond that. ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 04:38, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Web application that fails notability. No independent reliable sources found. Has not set the Twittersphere alight (43 followers). Philg88 ^♦talk 06:54, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 04:38, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 04:38, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless some better (independent) references can be found; the existing references are inadequate. Lest this come back to bite us in the bum, I'd like to note that we can easily re-create this page later, if this clever idea takes off and more references can be found. RomanSpa (talk) 07:48, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Not notable enough. Jonas Vinther (talk) 16:13, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: as not meeting notability. Thinking over what I've read, I don't see an assertion of significance and to me it reads as more than "slightly" promotional. We must remember that we claim to be an encyclopedia, and not a collection of wonderful ideas or a listing of useful services. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dlohcierekim (talk • contribs) 16:19, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Notability concerns, as well as very spammy... and as RomanSpa stated, we can always recreate at a later date (when the website is more than a month old, and proves to not be a flop)... - Adolphus79 (talk) 17:36, 16 May 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.