Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Comparison of webmail providers

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 no consensus. v/r - T P 03:09, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comparison of webmail providers

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

Wikipedia is not a directory Wikipedia is not a guidebook Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information

This page is solely a link of services at websites. The data is not static, and not encyclopaedic as it reflects now and only now. I am not saying that it shouldn't be on a website somewhere, I am just saying that it is not for our encyclopaedia — billinghurst sDrewth 05:25, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, Wikipedia is not a directory. JIP | Talk 06:24, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 08:47, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wikipedia is not Consumer Reports. And Adoil Descended (talk) 11:42, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:26, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. --Legis (talk - contribs) 04:54, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is not a directory; its a selective list-form article giving major properties or service most of which are notable (we should either write articles on the others or remove them, as usual). It's not consumer reports, because it doesn't rate them, and the basic purpose of CR is to do just that. The data is of course not static: the place for a historical treatment of the features is the individual articles. (We have many such articles, for a few very highly notable ones such as operating systems, we do list historical data, but list articles like this are supposed to be a summary). RThis is exactly the right website for this kind of information, and it has been exactly the right place for it since the beginning--the coverage of such subjects is how we first became important. DGG ( talk ) 05:30, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Hold on, Wikipedia has traditionally had many list and comparison articles. What specifically is wrong with this one? And where is it written that a list/comparison is only allowed if the content is static? I don't think the nominator has sufficiently explained the reasoning for deletion and pointed to which policies the article's existence violates. --Qwerty0 (talk) 16:44, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above comments. There are many, many similar summaries on Wikipedia. Apart from anything else, I found this page really useful, and I wouldn't know where else to look for such information.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 12:21, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above comments. Ramaksoud2000 (talk) 02:38, 15 December 2011 (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.