Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/30gigs

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 Keep (no consensus). Ral315 (talk) 05:16, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] 30gigs

Non-notable email provider. Nearly-speediable article originally contained a contact request. Delete (see below). -- SCZenz 08:32, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

• Keep, the article is crappy, but I think I can fix it into a nice stub. An Alexa rank of 48,246 and I found 1220 sites linking to it with Google. Appears to be sufficiently notable to me. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:59, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
• At that level, it probably satisfies WP:WEB, but I would urge (not require) that the external link be to a site that discusses the group, rather than to the provider itself, just to limit the possibilities of page rank boosting. In particular, Google hits are inherently high for any e-mail provider, as anyone who puts in href mailto will generate a link. Weakest keep. Geogre 11:10, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, just another website. --Ezeu 15:15, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
• Weak keep per Mgm. Solver 17:41, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
• Weak delete. I might've been too hasty to nominate it, as the original version of the article biased me against it. However, despite a high ranking, it's an email provider—I haven't seen much evidence there's anything interesting about it other than a fair number of people use it for email. Obviously I'm willing to change my vote again if I see more info. -- SCZenz 17:45, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment. See GMail - the feature listing is long enough for an article all by itself, and a feature listing can certainly be made for any email provider. Solver 17:54, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
    • Gmail was groundbreaking and extremely highly-publicized. Is this? -- SCZenz 19:50, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
      • No, but my point is that at least a feature listing can be quite detailed even without being a groundbreaking service. Solver 20:22, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
        • And mine is that, regardless of how long an article you can write, if it's not a notable company we don't need the article. -- SCZenz 23:19, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Per MacGyverMagic. The article, can be improved, and is mildy notable. Banes 20:14, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

• Aint mildy notable eq delete?--Ezeu 23:16, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

• Delete webspamMONGO 03:23, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete no noteworthy yet. Sethie 00:28, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep not an incredibly noteworthy topic; however, the provider is gaining in popularity and is often cited as a criticism of gmail to show that gmail's storage alone are unimportant. As such, it might provide a better sidenote to the gmail article, but I believe it worthy of article. Cool3 22:19, 5 December 2005 (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.