Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mailtor

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 redirect to Comparison_of_webmail_providers#Digital_rights. ...where it is currently listed. To give more detail: There is no consensus for or against inclusion of Mailtor in that table--that is something that is best determined through the normal editing process at that table. However, a redirect is warranted under our policies if coverage exists, and no specific arguments were made toward the policy-based reasons for omitting a redirect. --j⚛e decker ^talk 21:46, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Mailtor

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

Not finding any reliable sources. (Fails GNG / NWEB). — Rhododendrites ^talk | 18:55, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:32, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:32, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Mailtor could be listed under "Tor gateway available" at Comparison_of_webmail_providers#Digital_rights. Mailtor is currently perhaps the most popular, long-standing email service in the tor network of those who are non-commercial and free to use. --David Hedlund (talk) 20:30, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I will try and cite more reliable sources. Don't delete it yet. §Alphaslucas§ (talk) 00:31, 28 May 2014 (UTC) Ok, I added 2 More sources. §Alphaslucas§ (talk) 01:49, 28 May 2014 (UTC) Progressively adding more sources Alphaslucas ^talk 04:59, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge then redirect to either Tor (anonymity network) or Comparison_of_webmail_providers Please see comment below.Keep References are coming together thanks to Alphaslucas. Philg88 ^♦talk 08:28, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

- Thanks Mate. Just trying to add more and more hidden services to the list.Alphaslucas ^talk 08:30, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your welcome, it's a worthwhile mission. Wikipedia is a vital source of information on Tor services for those denied certain freedoms pertaining to Internet access/censorship. Just make sure that those you add meet Wikipedia criteria for inclusion. Philg88 ^♦talk 08:43, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And just people who don't want to go through Drugs and CP to find what they want. One question, is wikipedia censored in any country? Alphaslucas ^talk 09:03, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

See Internet censorship#Around the world. This is getting off-topic now. Philg88 ^♦talk 09:16, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, anyway thanks. Is the proposal for deletion resolved yet, User:Philg88? Alphaslucas ^talk 09:33, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Alphaslucas: No, I'm afraid not. It will stay listed for seven days. If you add more refs to the article there is a greater chance that it will be retained if there are delete !votes forthcoming. Philg88 ^♦talk 11:30, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Great that there are more sources now, but there's no precedent to think these constitute "significant coverage..." (i.e. not just one item in a long list) "...in reliable secondary sources" (i.e. not a wiki, not a blog post except when a very well known blog). Hopefully there are more (despite nominating here, I agree Tor is a valuable subject to cover). --— Rhododendrites ^talk | 12:05, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Also, if you're still interested, there's Censorship of Wikipedia too. --— Rhododendrites ^talk | 12:07, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete 0 WP:RS (currently) fails WP:GNG (I'm not counting WP:UGC and passing mentions from unreliable sources as significant coverage as per Rhododendrites). Agree a worthy cause, but find 2 RS to base this on, or draft in userspace first. Widefox; talk 12:22, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Much as I hate to say it, the required reliable sources do not exist. Most mainstream media have only a peripheral idea of what the Darknet is, never mind knowing about its software capabilities. For that reason, I have changed my !vote to merge then redirect, as that seems to be the only way to save this. Philg88 ^♦talk 04:23, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Fails WP:V, fails V. Agree with sentiment WP:WORTHYCAUSE, WP:USEFUL even, but... Existence ≠ Notability. We're caught between WP:NOT#HOWTO and still needing an RS if merged. I'd favour deletion and WP:userfication to find sources. Widefox; talk 08:19, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, slakr^\ talk / 03:37, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:25, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - software article of unclear notability, lacking significant coverage in independent, reliable sources. Though incidental mentions exist, there appears to be no in-depth independent coverage.Dialectric (talk) 11:32, 22 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.