Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/EGain Corporation


 * 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. JohnCD (talk) 23:08, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

EGain Corporation

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

I'm not confident that this passes the WP:CORPDEPTH needed to pass GNG. My reasons being sources such as [] which is used to say they won a value award, my other concern being that when I google the corp I get one hit [] Hell In A Bucket (talk) 12:47, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:48, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:48, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:49, 25 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete Over 1,000 hits on Newsbank. Good news?  It seems not.  First filter down to newspapers to eliminate press releases and the like.  Then there are 163 hits.  Eliminate the stock market quotes and we have about 30 stories that mention eGain.  There are two or three which rise to the level of passing mention, mostly of the form "...these include companies such as eGain, which [verb jargon nouns]...".  The others are of the form "X, who works for eGain, said blah blah blah about etc."  Therefore fails WP:CORP.&mdash; alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 03:12, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom - no references to establish notability. Just because there's a Reuters, Hoovers or WSJ page about them doesn't indicate they are sufficiently notable. --みんな空の下 (トーク) 02:23, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete per Alf's excellent analysis. --MelanieN (talk) 17:57, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete promotional article for non notable subject. Logical Cowboy (talk) 20:44, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete per Alf's detailed assessment. Finnegas (talk) 23:23, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
 * 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.