Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/IdeaSIP

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. - Mailer Diablo 10:09, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] IdeaSIP

IdeaSIP (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

fails WP:CORP, prod tag removed — Swpb talk contribs 22:37, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

This is twice in one day that Swpb has marked this page for deletion with a somewhat vague reference to failing WP:CORP. Perhaps someone could elaborate and detail why this page is marked and explain how this page differs from similar pages in the VoIP Companies category (Voxbone, Free World Dialup, Gizmo Project, etc). Modifications were made, but it's somewhat difficult to know what modifications need to be made in order to comply without further guidance. Eneref 23:08, 5 January 2007 (UTC) Eneref

I'm not sure what is unclear about "fails WP:CORP". Firstly, the article fails the criterion "The company or corporation has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the company or corporation itself." No such works are asserted. Of the references in the article, one is not English, one is a broken link, and the third does not reference this company by name. Similarly, the article fails the other two criteria; to my knowledge, it is not "listed on ranking indices of important companies produced by well-known and independent publications", nor is the "company's or corporation's share price is used to calculate stock market indices". — Swpb talk contribs 00:46, 6 January 2007

(UTC)

First, we're referring to a company that has a global userbase. Why should a non-English article be discounted? Secondly, how does this differ from the other aforementioned pages that have not been deleted. FWD, for instance, references the FWD trademark application (which is hardly an article), the founder's Blog, and a decision that uses FWD as an example of one of many companies that offer the same sort of service (ours included). Voxbone's page references no one. Gizmo Project's page references a page of links to client names and someone's discussion on a blog on how cool it is to use Gizmo Project with Asterisk. You've marked the page for deletion. You've deleted links that were neither broken nor irrelevant to the article in question because one didn't work for you and one wasn't English. Your methodology in the face of the other pages and the global nature of information in general as well as that of the service seems... incongruous. I really don't understand what's so different about this page than the others. I'm not trying to be difficult. I just don't get it. Eneref 01:56, 6 January 2007 (UTC)Eneref
I am sure there are pages on Wikipedia at least as worthy of deletion as this page. However, seeing as I obviously haven't read all of Wikipedia, I can only take each page I come across in turn and determine if it meets inclusion requirements. Arguing that a given page should stay because a similar page has not (yet) been deleted is completely falacious reasoning. As for the references, this is the English language wikipedia, and references in languages other than English are not exactly helpful, particularly in determining notability, where the editors determining the validity of a source cannot be expected to know a language other than English. As for the other reference I removed, the site in question loaded, with a message that that particular content was simply not there. I am fairly certain such a problem would not be limited to me or my browser. If this company has global notability as you claim, it should be very easy for you to find and add reliable, non-trivial, English-language sources to the article. — Swpb talk contribs 05:51, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

swpm comments fail: Wikipedia:New pages patrol - Sobedai

  • Delete Please see Wikipedia:Inclusion is not an indicator of notability. The article does not claim notability under any of the criteria established at WP:CORP. I did a Google search and could not find any significant references to the company or the software other than the company's own websites; although it is mentioned in blogs, those are not considered reliable sources. Non-English articles are perfectly acceptable for establishing notability (I strongly disagree with the nominator's statements on that), but a blog is not considered a reliable source no matter what language it is in. Lyrl Talk C 20:21, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
The full text of WP:REF with regard to non-English sources: "Because this is the English Wikipedia, English-language sources should be given whenever possible, and should always be used in preference to other language sources of equal calibre. However, do give references in other languages where appropriate. If quoting from a different language source, an English translation should be given with the original-language quote beside it." Acceptable yes, "perfectly acceptable", perhaps not. With regards to establishing notability as opposed to merely supporting content, English sources are clearly preferable. — Swpb talk contribs 20:57, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 06:57, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete, google turned up only 13.000 hits outside of their site and wikipedia, very many of them are just phone numbers listed on various webpages. Compare with e.g. skype: 80 Mio. Google hits, or a smaller one Broadvoice with 300.000 hits -- Chris 73 | Talk 22:48, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Nishkid64 14:10, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete, likely conflict of interest and spam. The article does seem to dwell on the advantages this outfit's service possesses over a major competitor. - Smerdis of Tlön 15:36, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment This could be notable due to being listed on http://www.iana.org/assignments/trip-parameters (I cant find a good article that covers Telephone routing over IP). Numbering begins at 256, and IdeaSIP is 327, putting it at number 71 in this ordered list of providers as of 2001. However this is inconsistent with the year of establishment on the article, 2005, so this factoid may be unrelated. John Vandenberg 20:41, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete, fails WP:V and WP:RS with not even having one English source. What Swpb edited and did not place up for deletion are not relevant. BJTalk 21:00, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. I havent been able to find any independant sources in english. John Vandenberg 22:16, 22 January 2007 (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.