Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Email service provider

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 keep. The dab idea can continue to be discussed on the talk page. Sandstein 18:16, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Email service provider

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

Unbearable page (see also Talk:Email service provider#Unbearable page) ale (talk) 12:05, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:28, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural close as one of the least policy-based rationales I've ever seen (apart from those that just say "reason"). Not only that, but it's clearly a notable topic, as things like Hotmail/Outlook, Gmail and Yahoo Mail are email service providers. [1] seems reliable, and a vast number of email providers advertise themselves using this term. Hell, Microsoft themselves use this term: [2] Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 18:48, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep No rationale for deletion given; notable topic. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 23:22, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
So fix it -- ShinmaWa^(talk) 00:03, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Unbearable? What, we have to clean out spamlinks every so often, so that's 'unbearable'? No real reason presented for deletion and no major problem exists with the article as-is. I expected it to be a lot worse but compared to some of our 'list of' articles on Internet providers this is downright calm. Also, nobody else commented on the talk page heading contribed by the nom, which seems to be purposefully designed to slant this article towards deletion, when the pros and cons were solely put in front by the nom. Nate • (chatter) 02:40, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. No policy-based rationale for deletion presented. The subject is clearly notable. The article could use some work (needs references and should be expanded and illustrated) but this is besides the point. —Psychonaut (talk) 07:17, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per above. — Joaquin008 ^(talk) 10:03, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, plenty of reliable secondary sources independent of the subject to satisfy notability. — Cirt (talk) 05:05, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The issue seems to be that this article talks about two differnt type of entities that have been referred to as "Email Service Provider". The first type of entity is general email service provided by major companies such as Gmail, Hotmail, etc are obviously notable. The second type is a company providing email marketing. I don't see that there is any good info to merge, so adding a hat note at the top to refer to email marketing would resolve this. -- Whpq (talk) 18:02, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Topic is clearly notable and no valid reason for deletion is given. --Boson (talk) 06:43, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

How about a disambiguation page? I'll create a disambiguation, as a hat note was attempted before and didn't work. It will contain two items: Email and mailbox provider as more and more often the ambiguous term is being used in that sense. The mailbox provider page may deserve to become a full page rather than a redirection to an ISP section, but links need no change. The second item would be Email service provider (marketing), discussing ESPs. Most links will have to be changed to point here directly. I'll create the latter page by renaming this non-deleted page, because the bulk of the content, the talk, and the history of the page refer to the latter acceptation of the ambiguous term. ale (talk) 09:14, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Support disambiguation page as proposed. Sounds good to me. --Boson (talk) 17:42, 12 April 2013 (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.