Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/EBOX

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. Of the two users arguing to keep, one is an IP, the other a relatively new user with an extremely limited editing history. Neither provided any policy-based reasons to keep. -- RoySmith (talk) 03:54, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

EBOX

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

The article does not feature a single piece of SIGCOV in independent sources. Of the four sources, three are primary (2x own website + 1x press release), and one a listicle/directory on CanadianBusiness.com ; article does not seem to meet WP:NCORP (WP:CORPDEPTH) or even WP:GNG. Should also be noted that article was created and almost entirely written (and dePRODed in 2014) by WP:SPA JohnnySouche who has never edited any other topic, who has removed {{advert}} tags at least twice, who uploaded the EBOX logo as a "self-made file", and whose edits summaries when updating the EBOX article (such as updating their services or employee number) raises strong concern of undisclosed paid editing by an employee. Ben · Salvidrim! ✉ 16:51, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Finding independant source wasn't hard and I think this article have this place on Wikipedia — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.66.138.164 (talk) 17:24, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Already much better (I didn't find these because I was Googling with the old name "Electronic Box"). Thanks Ben · Salvidrim! ✉ 17:50, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 17:08, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 17:08, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Quebec-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 17:08, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 17:09, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Yunshui ^雲 _水 10:38, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ironically this company has reprinted 70000 articles from Wikipedia in a public ad campaign this fall. Keep. --QultureQc (talk) 18:49, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:26, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Based on the references that are already in the article (including those added and mentioned above) and the fruitless seaching I have performed, this is a run-of-the-mill company with no indications of notability. None of the references are intellectually independent and they fail WP:CORPDEPTH and/or WP:ORGIND. Topic fails GNG and WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 22:23, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as corporate spam, with a listing of its products and services. No value to the project; Wikipedia is not a free means of promotion for non-notable companies. WP:NCORP / WP:CORPDEPTH fail. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:18, 27 January 2018 (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.