Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mindsmack

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 FastMail. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 23:14, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mindsmack (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

Article is written only for promotional and advertising purposes. References are very poor. References are just some profile made in popular media. No significant coverage by independent media. Nothing significant or notable about the company to be here. does not meet notability criteria. Light21 13:36, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:52, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:52, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:52, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:52, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• not sure - the first Inc. article is substantial RS coverage, but that's the only example. I'd honestly expect more - David Gerard (talk) 15:51, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: Notable as developer of FastMall, which has been covered in New York Times among other outlets. Other RS include Inc and Bloomberg. Safehaven86 (talk) 17:16, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • That sounds like a reason to merge to FastMail, particularly the Bloomberg cite - David Gerard (talk) 19:31, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to FastMail per Safehaven86 - David Gerard (talk) 19:31, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to FastMail; I'm finding only trivial coverage on the company. I don't think we need an article for both the company and the product. Whatever is useful can be picked up from the article history. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:57, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect, there is no significant information here beyond the founding date. If we cannot tell whether it's a multi-million dollar company or a couple of guys in a garage (or both), there's no point in having a separate article about it, and there's nothing to merge. Huon (talk) 18:20, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to FastMail Over here the product looks like it has received more coverage than the company. Per WP:INHERITORG, I would go for a redirect here. I don't think a merge is necessary (given that the content in the article isn't particularly useful) and in any case a redirect preserves the article history, so any useful information can be selectively merged later. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 00:16, 9 October 2016 (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.