Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/CallMe Communications

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

[edit] CallMe Communications

Speedy deleted per admission of advertising intent. Someone else not working for/associated with the company is welcome to write a neutral article at some point. -- nae'blis 00:20, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

CallMe Communications (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Article does not meet WP:CORP notability criteria Rob.au 12:46, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

From what I can see, the organisation is possibly a non-notable going concern as a mobile phone dealer or possibly a new startup yet to begin operations. From my research, I can make the following notes.

• Organisation's website

Amongst the products said to provided by the organisation are an extensive range of Internet products - ranging from basic Internet Access, business-grade Internet Access, through to Hosting and other such services - you would expect the organisation's own website as linked in the article to at least have a basic overview of services. It remains nothing but a placeholder page saying "Under Construction". I'm not aware of any internet service provider that doesn't have at least a basic product listing on its website.

• Other websites

Similarly, you would expect at least a few hits on the greater World Wide Web. Known listing websites such as Broadband Choice allow ISPs to self-register and yet, at the time of writing, there is no listing for Callme Communications.

Searching Google for CallMe Communications delivers 38 results. From this I can see:

• • Wikipedia hits
  • Discussion board hits, all of which identify the posters as being staff or principals of CallMe Communications, ie. self-promotion. In all cases, these are for the mobile telephony products.
  • Indication that CallMe resells Think Mobile serivces, out of an address in Heatherton, a suburb of Melbourne, not the CBD as claimed in the article.
  • Indication that CallMe participates in an Australian mobile-phone recycling scheme, again at Heatherton.

• Telephone Directory

The organisation is not listed in the Yellow Pages. The organisation is listed in the White Pages, at the suburban address.

• Newspaper Archives

John Fairfax Holdings, publishers of The Age and Sydney Morning Herald newspapers, provide a searchable archive that extends back over ten years, before the existance of Callme. Basic search results are available for free, only displaying the full article attracts a fee. Searching the entire archive for callme gets only one result, an article that is over 18 years old.

• Author's own admission

The original article author (prior to the page being speedy-deleted twice as spam) noted at User talk:W.marsh#Deletion of CallMe Communications that their motivation for the article was to attract attention to the organisation. This author also identifies themself as a principal or employee of the organisation in the notes page of the organisation's logo image.

• More minor notes

The article still contains many glaring items that appear to be either false or misleading. These have been slowly toned down over the last couple of days, but many remain. For example, the organisation is referred to as "CallMe Communications Pty. Ltd." implying it is an Australian company. If this was the case, it would be in the National Names Index on the Australian Securities and Investment Commission website. My searches there and on the Australian Business Register] indicate that "CallMe Communications" (without the Pty. Ltd.) is a registered business name in Victoria and has an ABN, in the form of a Family Partnership.

The article also states the organisation is a telecommunications carrier and heavily implies it is actually a provider of infrastructure, not a reseller. In Australian telecommunications there is a distinction between a carrier and a service provider. The distinction is whether or not the organisation actually provides carriage service over physical infrastructure or radiofrequency spectrum of their own, or if they resell carriage service from others. Carriers must be licenced and will be listed on the List of licenced carriers on the Australian Communications and Media Authority website.

In my view, the article infringes WP:CORP, WP:SPAM, WP:V, WP:NPOV and WP:COI policies, is unsalvagable and should be deleted.

One of the citations added to the article tonight also doesn't satisfy WP:NOR

Rob.au 12:47, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

• Delete, as per impressive research by the nominator. The article mentions "numerous awards" and a product that "stuns the Australian press" — well it seems they were so surprised they forgot to write any articles about it.Demiurge 13:05, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Kimchi.sg 13:33, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete -- WP:SPAM, WP:NPOV. Pete Fenelon 02:09, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete If every nomination was as thorough as this one, these discussions would be a lot less contentious. Bravo. --Jayron32 02:48, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Speedy delete. This article has been given more than enough chances to improve. The company may someday be notable enough to qualify for a Wikipedia article, but until then, the article should be deleted. Wikipedia is not for writing about companies that may someday be famous, it's for writing about things that are already famous. --Elonka 01:52, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Upgrading to "Speedy delete" after I saw this: [1] --Elonka 06:51, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
• Comment - One of the article authors has continued disputing the deletion on the article's talk page, however at this point has not provided verification of notability as per WP:CORP. --Rob.au 01:56, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete -- as per WP:CORP and WP:COI, also worth noting is the director's intimidation to editor W.marsh User talk:W.marsh#Deletion of CallMe Communications who deleted the page. Extract: "just so you know CallMe Communications Ltd. as a company has a "good will" program which in our first year of existance has donated over $1500 to WIKIPEDIA and I think a little bit of respect is owed, being a Australian company about to go public it is in our best interest to have an article on WikiPedia. I need a reply from you ASAP, otherwise I will consider stopping donations to WikiPedia" This kind of intimidation attempts to undermine wikipedia principles and this also comes to show the intention of the management with regards to this article. --DryBitterMelon 06:32, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. Please do not delete this article. If you give me 2 weeks, I can establish notablity and deal with any other concerns you may have. Please raise these conerns with me BY EMAIL to steven@callme.com.au —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Steveng75 (talk • contribs) 01:08, November 28, 2006 (UTC)
  • — Steveng75 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Hi Steven from CallMe Communications,

I fail to understand your urgency in keeping an article on your company in Wikipedia, other than for promotional reasons. Attempt to "establish notablity" for a particular article in 2 weeks is certainly not how anyone would contribute in Wikipedia. You either have it now (write about it), or you don't (delete it). And when you do have notability in the future, you will be surprised that others will start writing about your company even without your intervention.

I suggest that you take the content of this article about to be deleted and stick it on where it is suppose to go; on your own corporate web page which is under construction at this very moment.

May I also suggest you sign your comments on Wikipedia, this will faciliate discussions, thanks.

Regards,

--DryBitterMelon 08:13, 28 November 2006 (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.