Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/OpenSER

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 as failing WP:N (specifically WP:CORP), WP:V, and WP:RS. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 04:53, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] OpenSER

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

Article fails to meet WP:CORP notability guidelines. Also, article was created by a member of the OpenSER development group which also is against WP:COI (conflict of interest) guideline. Calltech 13:38, 26 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}}
  • Delete. Article does not establish notability, and doesn't read completely neutral. Also, the sources provided are either first-party or unreliable, thus making verification of any notability very difficult or impossible. Hersfold (talk/work) 13:47, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Do not delete. Although the article is written by someone directly involved in the OpenSER project and I agree with Wikipedia policy that primary sources are exposed to impartial opinions, I strongly believe that OpenSER is a relevant project in the VoIP world today. The article should be neutral and it was tried as much as possible to keep it so, any remark that conducts to opposite feelings should be removed.

To prove the notability of the project I list few links and articles about OpenSER, from neutral sources:

The level of innovation brought by OpenSER in Open Source VoIP is another important criterion that should keep the article posted. Some unique values: Java SIP Servlet application server (WeSIP), VoIP Perl Application Server, Infrastructure Enum, many VoIP Presence extensions, SIP IM Conferencing.

I can assist further if you consider that more arguments are needed. I kept the content of the page quite minimalistic so far, to avoid the feeling of self promoting the project (cleanup and improvement in the content toward neutrality and usability of the page was done since its first version). There is a lot that can be included, in terms of innovations, capabilities and usage cases in area of communication technology. I hope that the chances to keep OpenSER page are higher now. Daniel-Constantin Mierla (talk/work) 10:07, 28 July 2007 (UTC) — Miconda (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Please check some of the above citations - some are showing as "dead links" and "Missing page". Also, please identify your relationship with this project. Thanks Calltech 12:34, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
Links should be fixed now, wrong wiki syntax used to separate web link and display words. I am one of co-founders of the project in 2005, working in Open Source and VoIP research since 2001. Miconda 13:15, 28 July 2007 (UTC) — Miconda (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Administrative note: - Miconda and Daniel-Constantin Mierla are the same user Calltech 12:32, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep the edited OpenSER entry.

OpenSER is an important open source project that is making a significant impact on the telecom industry. An OpenSER entry needs to stay in Wikipedia. However, I agree that the original OpenSER entry did not read as a neutral article. I have edited the OpenSER entry and I believe it is now acceptable for Wikipedia's guidelines.

Please sign your discussion entries using 4 tildes (~). Also, are you a member of this project? Thanks. Calltech 12:34, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for the guidance on how to leave a signature. I am not a member of the OpenSER project, but two developers who work for me at TransNexus have contributed to OpenSER. Our customers are VoIP service providers and they use TransNexus software with their OpenSER deployments. JPDaltonJr 14:09, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

  • Keep the edited OpenSER entry2.

OpenSER is a critical building piece of a Voice over IP infrastructure. Many companies using the software provided from this project to build services that are valuable for millions of customers. Wikipedia includes many articles over open source projects thats have a much smaller impact. Henning

  • Another vote to keep the OpenSER entry.

This project is one of the leading open source, completely free SIP server applications. It is a core component in many of the worlds largest IP telephony solutions, supporting millions of users across the world. Many companies openly acknowledge its use in their networks, including Truphone the UK-based Mobile VoIP provider, Truphone. I am a VoIP engineer who works with OpenSER and other related applications on a daily basis to provide IP telephony solutions. Adam — 80.169.36.194 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh 17:57, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete, probably a speedy because essentially just an ad. Sdedeo (tips) 18:29, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Weak Keep. I'm not associated with OpenSER at all - just browsing AfD. While the article needs work, with over 150k hits on Google (after removing wikipedia, openser.org, and sourceforge.net), and especially when combined with the links mentioned above, it seems to me to satisfy notability. WP:COI and WP:CORP are editing guidelines - not a reason to delete an article. —Mrand T-C 18:53, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for taking the time to write and give your thoughts here. I wanted to point out, however, that WP appears to be getting much tougher on articles written by users with WP:COI. Without sounding too WP lawyerish, here's what WP states right up front when creating a new article:
"Do not write articles about yourself, your company, or your best friend."
"Wikipedia is not an advertising service. Promotional articles about yourself, your friends, your company or products, or articles created as part of a marketing or promotional campaign, will be deleted in accordance with our deletion policies".
Also, WP:CORP is pretty much the standard for determining whether an article stays or goes. Calltech 19:47, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
You're correct about WP:CORP. I had a different sentence in there, and then forgot to pull CORP out. My point was that the first paragraph of WP:COI#How_to_handle_conflicts_of_interest states Conflict of interest is not a reason to delete an article, but lack of notability is. Therefore, this AfD is about notability - the sentence mentioning COI has no real standing in the original request for deletion or any subsequent discussion.—Mrand T-C 20:59, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
I agree that WP:COI alone does not justify deletion and should not have been included in the original request. I disagree that it shouldn't be included in "subsequent discussion". WP:COI#How to avoid COI edits makes that clear: ...if you have a conflict of interest avoid, or exercise great caution when ... Participating in deletion discussions about articles related to your organization or its competitors. Calltech 12:28, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep - definately notable, and don't think it reads as an advert. The number of google hits for this means it is relevant enough to warrent an article. Irishjp 11:47, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete any article I cannot understand. What the fuck is it about? Honestly, if this is a notable concept someone other than the development team will someday come along and write an article in English. AndyJones 12:59, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment - perhaps we should dumb it down and litter it with profanities, would that help you get a better understanding? Irishjp 15:25, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
      • Couldn't make it any worse. AndyJones 17:05, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment How does the number of Google hits define notability? WP certainly doesn't state this, from what I've researched. In fact, that argument (several hundred thousand hits) was used (and disputed) in another AfD, yet that article was deleted for lack of notability. If a project, company, or product is included in wikis, forums, blogs, etc. (none of which are reliable sources), the Google hit count can be very high. Calltech 20:37, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep, seems to meet notability. [1]

[2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] Carlosguitar 03:04, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Just checked some of these links and found they are contributed by project members, listed training info, press release info, trivial (in WP sense) references, etc which are outside Wikipedia:Notability#General_notability_guideline. Calltech 12:06, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
Disagree, especially with oldskoolphreak.com source that I did not found "contribution by members". Also there is a lot of blogs sources and Miconda's links seems to be reliable. Carlosguitar 11:17, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
WP:SPS points out that random blogs are not valid sources. Unless the writer of the blog is notable himself, opinions on blogs are usually not notable. An argument could possibly be made about citing facts presented in blogs, but in reality, they could be opinions or inventions being presented as fact - so a strong effort should be made to verify those facts to find an additional independent sources.—Mrand T-C 14:48, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
I know about WP:SPS, but I do not believe that some authors are not notable. [9] The problem is to know who is author of blog. Carlosguitar 16:10, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep OpenSER is heavily documented, there are books about it for Christ Sake. Btw. this user Calltech he is known as a devoted Asterix fan and has requested deletion of YATE, CallWeaver, FreeSWITCH, OpenPBX.org, and probably several other VoIP projects. With this heavy bias on his part this AfD (and any other he suggests) should be discarded with prejudice. Carewolf 12:06, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
Carewolf, my only prejudice is against groups or users who insist upon using WP to promote a project, company or organization. This is totally against WP guidelines and the overall philosphy of this wiki. Your comment that I am a devoted Asterisk fan is a false accusation. 3 of the 4 projects listed above were DELETED through AfDs just like this one because of thoughtful and supported discussions (not emotional, unsupported accusations by a project advocate) because the projects lacked notability. There have been thoughtful arguments made on both sides here, up until your unsupported accusation above. Calltech 12:32, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
Calltech, why are you still insisting that this article is not notable? OpenSER is a widely-deployed and well-documented project that is beginning to have as much impact in the VoIP community as Asterisk has in the past few years. If your protest is because an OpenSER developer wrote the article, then I'll be one of the first to step up and begin rewriting it as a user of the software. Mblaze 18:21, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
Mblaze, please provide neutral, unbiased, reliable and verifiable citations that support your statements. Just saying how widely deployed and great a project OpenSER is doesn't cut it here on this discussion. Its really that simple. Many of the citations listed above don't appear to meet the Wikipedia:Notability#General_notability_guideline. And this discussion has nothing to do with Asterisk or how OpenSER stacks up against that project. The article should be written in a neutral fashion, which is sometimes very difficult if you are a project team member and you are listing advantages and features as if this were a marketing piece. Calltech 19:00, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
Keep See the ACM and IEEE papers discussing OpenSER posted at the very top, as well as the MIT SIP.edu project. Mblaze 19:22, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Another vote to keep the OpenSER entry.

OpenSER is part of the history of Internet Communications, a core part of how FWD works and a platform/technology that is enabling and empowering the world of open communications. There are undeniable truths. Signed, JeffPulver


Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. When using certain templates on talk pages, as you did to ab, don't forget to substitute with text by adding subst: to the template tag. For example, use {{subst:uw-test1}} instead of {{uw-test1}}. This reduces server load and prevents accidental blanking of the template. Thank you.