- 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. — Scientizzle 17:05, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
First off: possible conflict of interest issues with the article creator, but that's not why I'm nominating it. I'm nominating it because although the article is well-sourced, and notability is ostensibly asserted, all the sources seem to be about the concept, rather than the company. In my eyes this makes the concept - tarpitting to prevent spam - notable, but not the company itself. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry 09:47, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The recognition by the MIT Spam Conference establishes notariety. The newspaper articles referenced provide coverage of the spam conference awarding the company's founder the "Best Paper Award." Someone deleted a previous reference to a blog posting by Nick Shelness, who is the former CTO of Lotus -- arguably a good source on the topic of electronic mail. If someone could put that blog post back in, I think the notariety of the company would be reinforced. Additionally, I wonder why TurnTide is considered sufficiently notable for Wikipedia? There are only two references: one speaking of Symantec's acquisition of the tiny startup, and another bit of puffery from the Internet Research Group. MailChannels technology is as significant as TurnTide, so IMHO it is notable and should be in the Wikipedia. Ken.simpson.mailchannels 04:21, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, the Washington Post Article referenced in MailChannels is all about MailChannels the company. Tarpitting is the general area of innovation, but MailChannels is only one of two company's to ever successfully commercialize this approach, hence the MIT Spam Conference award. "Spammers are impatient, so a Canadian company has developed new technology to capitalize on that impatience to cut the volume of unwanted e-mail messages flooding the Internet." I don't see how this article is about the concept rather than the company:
"The company has secured customers in a wide range of fields since its founding in 2003. The city of Richmond in British Columbia reported halving its spam volume after deploying the company's software across its government networks. Cornell University and Northeastern University also are clients." This quote does not discuss the technique. It discusses the company.
Please don't delete this article. It is clearly notable.
Thanks, Ken Ken.simpson.mailchannels 04:27, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Coredesat 04:54, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, W.marsh 19:40, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, seems notable enough to me. Stifle (talk) 20:28, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletions. -- A. B. (talk) 21:31, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletions. -- A. B. (talk) 21:33, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, both the company and the concept are notable. Dhaluza 15:55, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak keep: The NW and Radar sources are somewhat weak - the former doesn't mention the company and the latter is a blog. The other two external links would be adequate, if merged into the article as proper citations. External links do not a cited article make. The single primary source that is actually used by the article at this point is not really adequate. MrZaiustalk 16:40, 11 November 2007 (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.