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. It seems that the article has been improved with the addition of reliable sources.Yannismarou 08:31, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

EmailCash (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

Fails WP:WEB. All references are directly related to the subject, bringing this article closer to an advertisement rather than an encyclopedic subject. Longhair\^talk 01:23, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Longhair\^talk 01:23, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I'm surprised you (presumably) haven't heard of them Longhair, they've been around for years, have had TV ads, etc. Probably the best known company of its type in Australia. -- Chuq (talk) 01:31, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Oh I've heard of them, but are they notable outside of their own advertising efforts? -- Longhair\^talk 01:33, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep, I think it can be improved as long as it squeezes out the discreet attempts at advertising, but the article does seem non-notable, at least for people near where I live... --Cremepuff222 (talk, review me!, ???) 01:53, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak delete per nom; while notable, it would need significant improvement to bring it up to an appropriate level worthy of encyclopaedic status. Notability is a real issue for the company per Longhair thewinchester 02:07, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Longhair. --cj | talk 02:54, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and cleanup. Google News Archive comes up with 25 articles [1] including this article claiming that it was one of Australia's fastest growing companies of 2005. [2]. Capitalistroadster 03:40, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Happy to leave it up now (see comment below) Per Longhair and also because article has been tagged etc for sometime and has not and is not moving from advertisement to encyclopedic.--VS ^talk 04:03, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment emailcash is a notable company, though the article is not sourced —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Bandwagonman (talk • contribs) 06:46, 10 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]
• Keep I have re-formated and sourced the site. I believe EmailCash is of sufficient notability. User:Bandwagonman

Comment In my view you have done little more than made the article more of an advertisement. There are claims being made (for example comments like ... with over 400,000 members as of 2005) require inline referencing and the article needs to be reworded to encyclopedic terms. Most of us won't mind it staying up and I might even change my vote but please provide direct inline references very soon else I will remove the uncited, non-attributed information in the next little while.--VS ^talk 08:22, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I was merely trying to help whoever posted this article, if someone could rewrite it in a more encyclopedic way then I encourage them as I feel EmailCash is a notable company. Comments such as with over 400,000 members as of 2005 were more to establish the importance of the company rather than advertise it, personally I have no interest in supporting or joining emailcash, especially after doing some secondary research on it. Bandwagonman 08:53, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I have removed the obvious comments that may come across as advertising, there may be more that need deleting, also I have referenced two of the articles suggested by capitalistroadster, I still believe that emailcash is a notable company. Bandwagonman 09:36, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have altered my view as noted above after Bandwagonman's attention and good work.--VS ^talk 10:34, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Keep. Just revise it to sound more encyclopedic. Cheers! --Wikipedian, Historian, and Friend? 16:19, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Wikipedian, Historian, and Friend? (talk · contribs) just opined "strong keep" in 27 AFD discussions over a period of 35 minutes, several times with clearly disruptive rationales. Uncle G 16:47, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • So? DXRAW 00:00, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, annoying enough to be notable. Lankiveil 11:52, 11 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]
• Keep, it's notable and deleting the article will only restart the clock on a slow moving article. John Vandenberg 13:25, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per User:Lankiveil. Jtrainor 23:42, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete the article fails WP:NOTABLE and WP:ATT, not been the subject of multiple independent reviews from WP:RS the BRW ref is independant but the other is only repeating the BRW article. Gnangarra 11:17, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment, I added another five references to support notablity and to establish that it is attributable, though basically as per norm, EmailCash is annoying enough to be notable. Bandwagonman 14:10, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

change to Keep 4 reliable sources(didnt check but agf they aren't advertorials) 3 aust newspapers, and 1 nz business mag. Gnangarra 14:23, 15 April 2007 (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.