Talk:8x8

This article was nominated for deletion on 19 September 2015. The result of the discussion was speedy keep.

This article was nominated for deletion on 13 January 2016. The result of the discussion was keep.

This page was proposed for deletion by 118.1.188.70 (talk · contribs) on 17 August 2015 with the comment: Non-notable company, most references are press releases It was contested by Liberalartist (talk · contribs) on 23 August 2015 with the comment: Seems likely that significant coverage in reliable secondary sources exists

This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Business Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Business, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of business articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.BusinessWikipedia:WikiProject BusinessTemplate:WikiProject BusinessWikiProject Business Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Title should be 8x8 Inc not 8x8 as 6x6 & 10x10 go to vehicle wheel/drive layouts. A link from 8x8 to here is appropriate.
This is especially important as the mobile page does not show the link to the wheel layout page

Alanthehat (talk) 07:31, 7 March 2015 (UTC)Reply

This article had been tagged for the Proposed deletion process "to suggest an article for uncontroversial deletion." I objected to the proposed deletion and have therefore removed the tag; I am posting here to explain my reasons for doing so.

I don't have any special expertise in VoIP or enterprise telecom. The basic reason for my objection is that tonight, when I kept coming across references to Packet8 in news articles about VoIP I was reading (e.g. [1]), I turned to Wikipedia to look for background information and came across this article for the first time. I was glad to find it here.

Now, I realize this isn't conclusive evidence of notability, and I could be persuaded to change my mind. However, a bit of preliminary searching in response to the proposed deletion tag has reinforced my initial impression that significant coverage in reliable secondary sources exists. The article certainly has room for improvement, but I don't think it merits deletion, and I certainly don't think it should be on any kind of a fast track for deletion.

LiberalArtist (talk) 04:30, 23 August 2015 (UTC)Reply