Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/EFax (2nd nomination)

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 delete. The only two people looking to keep presented dubious arguments. Neither provided any sources, and one admitted they weren't notable. -- RoySmith (talk) 17:29, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

EFax

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

This does not pass WP:CORP. By looking at 5 random references that are given they don't meet the threshold for achieving notability. The first one is a homepage about the product which is a primary source. The second one is a PRNews Wire article that is not WP:RS. The third one is an announcement about a deal signed with a notable company HP. The fourth one is a review of the android app and the website that has done the review PCMag.com is owned by j2global which also owns efax - at least from the disclosure on the PCMag android app review. This Yahoo finance article has a passing mention about eFax being a product owned by J2Global. This fifth one is a press release via market wired and there is nothing concrete about efax in addition to it being a non-reliable source. To add to the above there is a BBB review reference that is not a relieble source as seen here Maharayamui (talk) 05:55, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:39, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:39, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:39, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:39, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:39, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep One of the more well-known PC fax services. A niche market for sure but still notable enough for being a top company in its small (and admittedly declining) field. Nate • (chatter) 16:41, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Where are the reliable sources to give weight to the notability of this subject? Kindly point me there if it is indeed a well known PC fax service. Even if the field is declining then it should have coverage in WP:RS otherwise it is a trivial subject that shouldn't have an article here. Maharayamui (talk) 00:48, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - there is nothing in the article to suggest its notability. There are also no reliable sources as per nom as one would expect for an alleged leader in its otherwise small niche. Kagundu^{Wanna Chat?} 17:38, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - nothing to suggest notability as per WP:GNG. Mwenzangu (talk) 00:18, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- Agree that there is nothing notable about this organisation, other than they are well-know to engage in fraudulent billing practices.It may therefore be of benefit to alert consumers to the fraudulent conduct that this organisation repeatedly engages in and to the number of complaints (655) filed against it in its registered place of business Mistral2099 (talk) 14:48, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think this comment is slanderous since there are no reliable sources to substantiate these outrageous claims by this editor. The editor also agrees there is nothing notable about the organization which is the real metric to be on Wikipedia therefore the vote ought to be a delete. Maharayamui (talk) 00:36, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This is an encyclopedia, not a consumer protection service. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 09:28, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 17:07, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Most of the sources are press releases, passing mentions and usual announcements by a company which do not meet WP:CORP.Kansiime (talk) 04:57, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails Wikipedia:Product. Passing mentions in one or two RS cited, the rest of the sources are blatant promotional/self-published by other websites affiliated to it. Your average variety spam, delete this and move on. DarthVader (talk) 01:01, 13 April 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.