Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/EFax

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. (non-admin closure) -- Lord Roem (talk) 23:54, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

EFax

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

Speedy declined. Advertising of a non-notable Internet business. Wtshymanski (talk) 22:09, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Certainly one of the more well known providers of Internet fax services. Some promotional stuff to be sure, but sourcing in easily found and deletion should be the last avenue pursued for this article. Nate • (chatter) 06:31, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
STRONG Delete Per nominator, This is just an ad --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 23:12, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep Company has won awards and got a fair amount of coverage. Stowonthewolder (talk) 17:01, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep One of many internet technologies currently available. If you delete this one, then there is a comprehensive list of other technologies with proprietary names that would qualify for deletion as well. This is an encyclopedia and anyone searching for the term eFax should be able to find an unbiased entry. 86.145.244.183 (talk) 17:08, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This article had a history of legal skirmishes and marketing speak. This has decreased, and the copy has cleaned up over the last year with valid references added. Liam1958 (talk) 17:29, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 18:56, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 18:56, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, received good deal of secondary source coverage. — Cirt (talk) 10:37, 4 December 2012 (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.