Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/EBillMe: Difference between revisions
| Line 11: | Line 11: | ||
:<span style="color:#FF4F00;">'''Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.'''</span><br/><small>Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, '''[[User:MBisanz|<span style='color: #FFFF00;background-color: #0000FF;'>MBisanz</span>]]''' <sup>[[User talk:MBisanz|<span style='color: #FFA500;'>talk</span>]]</sup> 03:11, 30 January 2009 (UTC)</small><!-- from Template:Relist --> |
:<span style="color:#FF4F00;">'''Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.'''</span><br/><small>Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, '''[[User:MBisanz|<span style='color: #FFFF00;background-color: #0000FF;'>MBisanz</span>]]''' <sup>[[User talk:MBisanz|<span style='color: #FFA500;'>talk</span>]]</sup> 03:11, 30 January 2009 (UTC)</small><!-- from Template:Relist --> |
||
*'''Delete'''. An online business that contains no references and no showing of importance. - [[User:Ihcoyc|Smerdis of Tlön]] ([[User talk:Ihcoyc|talk]]) 15:25, 30 January 2009 (UTC) |
*'''Delete'''. An online business that contains no references and no showing of importance. - [[User:Ihcoyc|Smerdis of Tlön]] ([[User talk:Ihcoyc|talk]]) 15:25, 30 January 2009 (UTC) |
||
*'''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? |
*'''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? <small><span class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Cswpride|Cswpride]] ([[User talk:Cswpride|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Cswpride|contribs]]) 14:23, 1 February 2009 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
||
Revision as of 14:24, 1 February 2009
- EBillMe (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)
No refs, no notability (asserted or otherwise). flaminglawyer 02:29, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
- 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. -- roleplayer 02:41, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
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)
- 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)
- Delete. An online business that contains no references and no showing of importance. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:25, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
- 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? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cswpride (talk • contribs) 14:23, 1 February 2009 (UTC)