Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/CallWeaver

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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 discounting all the WP:SPA accounts. Jaranda wat's sup 21:11, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] CallWeaver

CallWeaver (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Product/organization lacks notability per WP:CORP. Citations from voip-info.org are self edited wiki entries. Calltech 04:34, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Further comment: This project was originally named OpenPBX.org and recently renamed CallWeaver. OpenPBX.org was nominated for deletion and subsequently removed through its own AfD back in December, 2006 Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/OpenPBX.org. Project was also a significant part of the discussion here as well Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/OpenPBX by Voicetronix. Calltech 12:25, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

  ATTENTION!

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on a forum, please note that this is not a majority vote, but rather a discussion to establish a consensus among Wikipedia editors on whether a page is suitable for this encyclopedia. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines to help us decide this, and deletion decisions are made on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

Nonetheless, you are welcome to participate and express your opinions. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments by suspected single-purpose accounts can be tagged using {{subst:spa|username}}
  • This is strangely reminiscent of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Relationship Approach to Systems Development. And Delete as it's not notable. Calgary 04:55, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per lack of notability Corpx 07:38, 9 July 2007 (UTC)Neutral based on the two links given below. However, I'm not sure these are enough to qualify as "significant coverage" Corpx 04:35, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
    • The software is well notable. We have ditched other software for this just to get more control and functionality given in CallWeaver. May I ask by what reasons this software project should be deleted? Please do detail this. Rkarlsba 00:01, 10 July 2007 (CEST)
    • Also note that this project has been mentioned in several articles. A quick google for openpbx.org shows this. The fact that the name CallWeaver is not so widly mentioned, is the short time since the name change. A removal of this article must be considered censorship. Rkarlsba 18:55 10 June 2007 (CEST)
    • Where is the "significant coverage by independent media" ? Corpx 16:59, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
      • Google shows 133,000 result when searching for Callweaver
  • Google hits dont count for notability. Notability must come from reliable sources Corpx 01:34, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment, why follow a prod with an AFD an hour later? --Dhartung | Talk 09:03, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
    • See further comment added above in the nomination. Article was nominated for speedy delete on 8 July 2007, removed, and subsequently reinstated that same day with a prod. Calltech 12:25, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
      • Yeah, I deleted but the author asked nicely for a chance to do something within the prod period, and I let him. This is somewhat vindictive, Calltech. -- Y not? 13:47, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
        • This is not vindictive - the article about this organization failed to meet WP:CORP back in Dec 2006 under one name and now the same organization is being added again under a new one. It still fails the notability requirement. Calltech 02:12, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
          • Callweaver is not an "org". Can you re-instate your last comment to make sense to anyone, even when he is not completely familiar with WP terminology? Otherwise i have to wonder wether you had some bias. --194.150.191.251 09:27, 13 July 2007 (UTC) — 194.150.191.251 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • Keep. Calltech, you seem rather eager and biased to get rid of the CallWeaver page. Just give it a chance. Mm 202 22:20, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
      • Check out the list of contributors to the asterisk entry.
      • Mm 202 - please argue the merits of keeping or removing this article and do not make personal judgements about another user. Calltech 02:12, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
        • You are wrong here. Personal Judgements can be made if some user is working out of bias. If this is a callweaver- vs asterisk-user discussion where asterisk users want to have Callweaver out, while vice versa wants in; and the only user not being involved in the overall topic saying to give it chance, this is probably the time to give it a chance. So, please answer this simple question: are you biased? --194.150.191.251 09:32, 13 July 2007 (UTC) — 194.150.191.251 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • Strong keep give it a break, give it a chance. There are rather a lot of ghits too, as pointed out by an anon here. Giggy UCP 23:34, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Google hits dont establish notability Corpx 02:30, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong keep This project has several distinct features from the project it was forked from and there is active development. I would like to know WHAT makes this article qualified for deletion? Mikaelbj 07:46, 12 July 2007 (CEST) — Mikaelbj (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
    • Does this mean that since I have contributed to Wikipedia anonymously in the past I am less credible?
  • Strong keep There is a very active user base, an active SVN, an active website, and an active IRC channel. This project is an OPENSOURCE project of merit and has addressed major issues with the original code base. Please answer what makes this article suitable for deletion. Wasim Baig 17:58, 12 July 2007 (PKST) — Wasimbaig (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • Ok - I registered so I can sign my comments on here. Feel free to tag me as a "single purpose account" if that is your wish - but note that I have contributed anonymously to articles in the past. The question of notability here is difficult - as if you ask anybody involved in open source telephony they will nearly all know what Callweaver is. Other projects such as Asterisk, Freeswitch, etc have entries on wikipedia and in reality they are known in just the same circles that Callweaver is. Terrymr 16:44, 12 July 2007 (UTC) — Terrymr (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • What's strange about these "Single purpose accounts" are that several of them have names go a long way back in the CallWeaver/OpenPBX.Org/Asterisk days, some of them for years. It wouldn't surprise me if Wasim above can be traced to an IP in Lahore, Pakistan, or that Mikael is tranced to Norway (or perhaps France if he's still on vacation). I'd like to see the _real_ reason here, why someone wants CallWeaver out of Wikipedia. I thought censorship wasn't ment to be part of such an organisation... RoyK 18:55, 12. July 2007 (CEST) Note to closer: Rkarlsba (talk • contribs • logs) actually made this post at 16:55, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[1]; there is no user named RoyK (talk • contribs • logs). Rkarlsba (talk • contribs • logs) also posted in this AfD, giving the appearance that two separate individuals (RoyK and Rkarlsba) are participating in this AfD while the participation is from only one individual. Also, Rkarlsba (talk • contribs • logs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. -- Jreferee (Talk) 14:48, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep - since the whole deletion debate seems to be asterisk-vs-callweaver(openpbx) bias it should be noted that, unlike asterisk, callweaver has working T38 Support: that means faxing via VoiP does work. Since people using voip will need that feature, this should be higlighted by a neutral medium like WP. I consider this a very highlighting feature. (non-native english speaker --194.150.191.251 09:40, 13 July 2007 (UTC) ) Terrymr — 194.150.191.251 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • Keep - Callweaver is just as notable as Asterisk (infact it has significantly improved features since it is not subject to the politics of a maintaining company with a vested interest). At the very least the Asterisk and Callweaver articles should be merged rather than removing all information about Callweaver. -- FireFury 13:19, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
    • Agreed - If callweaver doesn't merit it's own page then it should be merged with the asterisk entry - howver the "Asterisk lobby" will resist this. Terrymr 16:04, 13 July 2007 (UTC) — Terrymr (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • WP:COI issues here - After checking the CallWeaver home page, many of the posters here have a vested interest in this project and have not declared it, thus violating WP's conflict of interest guidelines. (RoyK and Rkarlsba are one and the same user and is listed as a member (or head) of the CallWeaver Development Team on the project home page). User name Mm 202, the creator of this article, also appears on the CallWeaver wiki page as a contributor to its FAQ. Using the same or similar names as listed on the Callweaver project page, these users are affiliated with this article's project. Most of the postings here are by users whose only contribution are to this article or to this discussion, as noted by Corpx. The discussion has nothing to do with CallWeaver vs Asterisk. It has everything to do with the WP:CORP, specifically notability. The article reads like an endorsement or promotion of CallWeaver which is against WP guidelines, WP:NOT. A statement that project X is better than Y or is the Best at anything, and then citing a self edited wiki (voip-info.org) entry that was created by a member of CallWeaver smacks of promotion. Issues raised regarding censorship and bias are diversions from the issue at hand. These are similar tactics used here Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/OpenPBX by Voicetronix during the OpenPBX AfD discussions. There, a user even went further, suggesting Wikipedia would get sued if his article was removed. In spite of these claims, both OpenPBX and OpenPBX.org failed to survive their corresponding AfD's. I have NO interest in Asterisk or other similar project. My edits on the Asterisk article are limited to removing spam links, which I've done on hundreds of other articles in which I have no vested interest. I have had OpenPBX on my watch list ever since the AfDs listed above. Calltech 14:43, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
    • Calltech, I do not have a vested interest in CallWeaver. I used to use Asterisk and stumbled upon CW and switched to using it because it was better in some ways than Asterisk. I am just an end-user. I want the article to stay on here because I believe that other people can benefit from it. As for my contributions to the CallWeaver wiki, all I did was add a link to the Wikipedia CallWeaver page (the page in question). If it says otherwise, I'd like to see it. Mm 202 15:21, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
    • Calltech, Y accused you of vidinictiveness earlier in this discussion - now you pop up making COI claims against the contributors to this discussion - you have a history of removing references to other open source telephony projects from the Asterisk page many of which were relevant links and not spam. Now this may just be coincidence and I'm prepared to give you the benefit of the doubt.-- Terrymr 15:48, 13 July 2007 (UTC) — Terrymr (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
      • If you looked closely, you will also see that I have removed Asterisk links from other articles where it appeared they were simply promoting themselves there also. I cannot speak for Y, but did respond to his comment directly. He very likely was not aware that CallWeaver is a direct descendent of OpenPBX.org, which was removed by an AfD. I participated in the original OpenPBX AfD discussion (along with dozens of others). There are several ways he could have reverted his initial speedy deletion - he chose one way and I chose another which opens it up for more participation by openly publishing the AfD. Calltech 18:19, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
    • Can you explain to me how wikipedia is improved by removing Callweaver - your posts above suggest you are on a mission to keep callweaver out of WP. The very nature of open source projects is that users are encouraged to contribute to the project in any way they can, either by improving the software or its documentation, it therefore follows that you would see the names of people who are aware of Callweaver among its contributors. If anybody who makes a contribution to a project is automatically COI'd then open source would have very little representation at WP. -- Terrymr 15:48, 13 July 2007 (UTC) — Terrymr (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
      • WP:COI is very clear regarding adding articles about any organization or project that you are affiliated to ensure that it meets one of its cornerstones - Neutrality. WP also discourages participation in AfD discussions if you are affiliated with (or a competitor to) that organization. That doesn't mean you can't - it only means you should DISCLOSE such affiliation or risk losing credibility later. If you also read WP:NOT, WP is NOT a forum for promoting a business, website or project. The article as written appears like an advertisement for CallWeaver. There are hundreds of thousands of great organizations and projects today which do not meet WP:CORP standards for inclusion in this encyclopedia. Calltech 18:19, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
        • I seem to remember reading something about not simply citing WP policy as proof that you're right in a discussion - I'd like to see a discussion on the merits of keeping/removing the article or what can be done to improve it, not simple citations of apparently rigid rules. Terrymr 18:39, 13 July 2007 (UTC) — Terrymr (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. In the interests of disclosure : my interest in this project and this article is as a consumer of VOIP software - I participate in use and testing of a number of VOIP projects. I am not an owner of any organization which produces VOIP software. Terrymr 17:21, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong delete, this is a non-notable corporation. SalaSkan 11:33, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
    • This is not a corporation but an opensource PBX package - it is not produced by a corporation. Terrymr 17:14, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
      • Corporation, project, whatever, it's still non-notable. SalaSkan 20:57, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
        • I think this sums up the discussion - people who are wilfully ignorant of the subject matter at hand are making the call on whether the project is notable or not. Terrymr 21:09, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
          • They are not addressing whether the subject is notable as in fame or importance, they are addressing whether the subject is Wikipedia notable as in previously written, independent and verifiable facts. Has CallWeaver even been mentioned in a newpaper article or a book? -- Jreferee (Talk) 14:28, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
            • See above for media links to OpenPBX.Org, which was the former name of the project RoyK 21:01, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Note to closing admin: please discount the numerous SPAs who have participated in this discussion. SalaSkan 11:33, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
    • Yep - lets just ignore anybody with a contrary opinion to while we're at it. I've seen no real discussion from the pro delete posters other than rote recitation of policies - this is probably due to a lack of knowledge in the subject area of this article. Tagging of SPA's is just being used as a method to discount dissenting opinions without engaging them on the merits - truth is I had no reason to register a WP account until we were asked to sign our contributions to the discussion. I was able to make edits to articles without registering in the past. Terrymr 17:14, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
  • To answer comments made above that the article reads like an advertisement : the only obviously self promotional statement is this one "allWeaver has emerged as the undisputed leader in T.38 support.[1] CallWeaver has mature support for both T.38 passthrough and T.38 termination." which could probably be reworded to make the point in a better way. Certainly T.38 support is viewed as an essential function by the people driving this project. While the article may seem heavy on acronyms and jargon this is unavoidable given the subject and is certainly understandable by the technical audience who would find this project interesting. It would be redundant to seek to define all of the terms used within the article itself. Terrymr 18:13, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Whispering 12:13, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete Obviously this article is of great importance to so many people that they are compelled to register just to vote to keep. From what I can tell this is the third AfD, it really should be gone by now. Darrenhusted 12:23, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
    • There wasn't even a discussion under the openpbx.org Afd - with the name change in the pipeline there wasn't much point Terrymr 15:42, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete Under Wikipedia:Notability, a topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. CallWeaver has not received significant coverage in independent reliable sources and no verifiable artice can be written on the topic. Thus, CallWeaver is not Wikipedia notable. -- Jreferee (Talk) 14:24, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
    • I understand that something can be presumed notable if it has generated signigicant press coverage ... however the language you quote above does not imply as you say that something must be presumed non-notable absent the press coverage. Terrymr 15:42, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. Non-notable. In evidence: lwn.net, one of the most comprehensive news sources for the free software community, has mentioned CallWeaver exactly once, and that was merely an announcement of the name change. Slashdot has never mentioned it at all. The burden is on the CallWeaver partisans to establish notability, and thus far they have not done so. When LWN or Linux Magazine or someone publishes an article about your project, you're notable and you can bring your article back. Tualha (Talk) 14:46, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
    • This must be a first - claiming slashdot & lwn.net are the arbiters of notability - do they even publish original content ? Terrymr 15:42, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
      • LWN publishes mostly original content. Slashdot usually doesn't. My point was that, if the project is as notable as you claim, one would expect these very

comprehensive technology sites, which focus on free software, to have said more about it. Tualha (Talk) 19:03, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

    • Addendum: it occurred to me I should search for references to OpenPBX as well, since the name change is recent. That also came up empty. Tualha (Talk) 15:06, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

This section, between the lines, is all one posting (not by me). Tualha (Talk) 22:34, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

This section, between the lines, is all one posting (by me). Tualha (Talk) 22:34, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Let's examine these sources:

If these are the best you can do for sources, you prove my point. Offhand mentions of the project do not make it notable. Tualha (Talk) 22:34, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

  • Keep I think the sum of the various sources that have been listed here is a significant enough level of coverage for this one. JulesH 18:48, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep - (reiterating what I said before this was relisted): Callweaver is just as notable as Asterisk (infact it has significantly improved features since it is not subject to the politics of a maintaining company with a vested interest). At the very least the Asterisk and Callweaver articles should be merged rather than removing all information about Callweaver. Additionally, I have yet to see anyone explain why deleting this useful information improves Wikipedia - All our aims should be about improving Wikipedia, not removing articles for the sake of removing them. -- FireFury 18:58, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
    • Thanks for your comments - from a completeness standpoint it seems bizarre to have an article about asterisk without one about callweaver - the purpose of the callweaver project was to address some of the issues that people perceived with asterisk - including the inability to include other GPL code in asterisk and the delays in getting bugfixes comitted to the codebase. Terrymr 20:06, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Calltech who started the process to delete this article also proposed freeswitch (another open source phone project) for speedy deletion on 7/3/07 on the ground that : "It is blatant advertising for a company, product, group, service or person that would require a substantial rewrite in order to become an encyclopedia article." Having been accused of being partisan in the current discussion myself, I have to wonder what is going on here. Terrymr 21:52, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
    • Stay on topic, here, Terrymr. Your diversionary tactics are simply distracting from the issue of whether CallWeaver meets WP guidelines as a notable organization. As a user whose only contribution to WP has been an advocate for this article, you are hardly in a position to throw stones at others. Calltech 22:28, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
      • As I said earlier in the discussion, I have made contributions in to articles in the past but saw no need to register until this discussion came along and entries were made asking users to sign their comments. But I accept that I will be viewed as having shown up here simply to advocate for this article - and I've been trying to stiumlate a reasonable debate. You are the one claiming to be neutral.
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.