Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/EBillMe

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 Electronic billing. MBisanz ^talk 02:18, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

EBillMe

No refs, no notability (asserted or otherwise). flaming lawyer 02:29, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It gets plenty of hits on google - there's a website called ebillme.com which certainly appears to have some notability. However this is bordering on advertising. I would suggest redirecting to Electronic billing unless someone improves it. -- role^player 02:41, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I am new to really editing Wikipedia, but I'm trying to do my honest best. This is NOT advertising any more than any page on any business. Now, I think it might be good to have some general page that describes the type of service this is, and lists eBillMe as one provider. Fact is, objective information about this type of service is valid. It is not simply Electronic Billing, because it doesn't actually work like that, but rather uses that system in order to function, but it is a different service. I don't know that ebillme should be a unique wikipedia page, but it SHOULD be listed and explained somewhere on wikipedia. Objective comparison of its functions versus Paypal or Google Checkout or others is valid. Those other services are discussed here at wikipedia. eBillMe is unique in its operation. I first found out about it when using a site that offered it and I came to wikipedia hoping to find more information. I admit the initial article was not ideal, but my hope was that it would just be a start and eventually an article up to wikipedia's standards would be developed. --Backfromquadrangle (talk) 15:54, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 03:11, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. An online business that contains no references and no showing of importance. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:25, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The article should be improved. As of today this company has 70 hits on ProQuest Newspapers, 68 on InfoTrac OneFile (Gale), and 9,630,000 hits on Google; it is currently involved in an intellectual property case in the U.S.(Civil Action No. 1:08-cv-00897-CCB) with another company we have an article for Billmelater.com (ProQuest: 42,Infotrac: 4); and we have yet another article for at least one similar service, eWise (ProQuest:32,InfoTrac:10). There certainly should be enough Wikipedia:RS to prove NP:Notability. If the original author needs assistance with improving this page, perhaps the Wikipedia:Article_Rescue_Squadron could help? cswpride (talk) 21:30, 1 February 2009 (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.