Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Voipfone

Add links
Source: 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 keep. (non-admin closure) NorthAmerica1000 19:56, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Voipfone

Voipfone (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article was written in a some of form of spamming of wikipedia for the website to be endorsed. The only source mentioned to back this company comes from The Internet Telephony Services Providers’ Association. In in order to join you need to pay Annual Membership Fee, which does not grant this company the given right to have an article on wikipedia simon161388 ( talk ) 13:15, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep This is a very WP:Pointy nomination, and disruptive. Voipfone has had sufficient sources in the past, but has been written as a promotional piece of spam, and a WP:COPYVIO. Once this was removed it became a stub, with not much sourcing. Martin451 13:32, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This article is classified WP:Spam. Voipfone might have sufficient sources in the past, but in the present it is a promotional piece of spam. This article needs to be removed as it became a spam article, and gives the perception for editors that spam articles can remain as long as they have a past history with wikipedia. If this article shall remain, it would give new article writers and editor a bad impression of wiki. Jake748596 451 13:43, 11 March 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jake748596 (talk • contribs) 13:51, 11 March 2014‎ — Jake748596 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2014 March 11. —cyberbot I NotifyOnline 13:36, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:13, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:13, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I have re-added the awards, including the 2013 Queen's Awards for Enterprise, and their references + another reference. No opinion on keeping or deleting the article. Voceditenore (talk) 17:12, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Commercial spam. CombatWombat42 (talk) 17:39, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral (Voceditenore) you forgot to mention that the Queen's Awards for Enterprise, and their references were removed in October 2013 due to self promotion. Besides what pages is the queen's award is listed, I could not find one mention of the company in the document you added in a bid to keep it from being voted on for WP:Spam. (simon161388) 18:00, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • (1) A simple listing of awards with independent references is not spam. (2) That section had been removed not as spam but as a mass-revert of the addition of copyvio [1], although that section on its own was not copyvio and should not have been removed. (3) On page 48 47 of the document you will see iNet Telecoms Ltd (Voipfone), Quote:
An Innovation Award is made to iNet Telecoms Ltd (known as Voipfone) for developing and selling a telephone service specifically designed for micro-businesses, enterprises with fewer than ten employees. The commercially successful service, using Voice over Internet Protocol (VoIP) to transmit telephone calls over the internet and other networks, responds to challenges related to size, diversity, sensitivity to price, flexibility and instability of very small firms. It incorporates a dedicated ‘cloud’ exchange, purpose-built software and a sustainable business model that supports changes in communication products at low prices without compromising service levels. Thus, customers can change numbers of telephone extensions and run them wherever there are network connections on a ‘pay for what you need’ basis. They are enabled to grow or down-size without penalty, inconvenience or additional cost.
Whether or not the subject passes the criteria for inclusion in Wikipedia is another matter, but discussants here should have access to the original references which came with the article. The normal practice when stubbing an article after the removal of copyvio is to retain the references and non-infringing content. Voceditenore (talk) 18:41, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral (Voceditenore) I looked at page 47 of the queens awards. and Voipfone article has no mentioning of winning this award. All it that has written is on Voipfone it is the fact of the company being internet based telephone service, and who founded the company. I certainly Voipfone did not invented Session Initiation Protocol also known(SIP). Voipfone is now totally misleading, and written for the purpose of wiki recommending Voipfone versus actually being an article about VoIP. Your name Voceditenore is very similar to Voipfone's name, so i have my suspicion whether you have WP:COI on behalf of Voiphone for how you keep defending this company's article. If this article was not written so poorly for the purpose of self promotion I would not have an interest in flagging it as WP:SPAM. (simon161388) 19:46, 11 March 2014 (UTC). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Simon161388 (talk • contribs) 19:52, 11 March 2014‎[reply]
  • Page 48 47: "An Innovation Award is made to iNet Telecoms Ltd (known as Voipfone) for developing and selling a telephone service specifically designed for micro-businesses..." (my underlining) What part of that do you not understand? The entire document is the press book for the Queen's Awards for Enterprise published by the UK government listing the 2013 winners and brief descriptions of their citations. Read the title and introductory pages. The company is also listed as a winner in the HTML version here. That they won the award is indisputable. Whether or not that is significant in terms of meeting the notability criteria is another issue—it was one of 10 companies that won the Innovation award that year, so it's hardly an exclusive award. The article in its current state (and that's what is under consideration) is not written in a promotional manner. It is simply a neutral 3 sentence description of what the company does, when it was founded and by whom, and the awards it has received. As I said before, I have no opinion on whether the article should be kept. I simply added the missing references and awards so that the other discussants here could make an informed decision. AfD's are judged solely on whether the subject meets the notability criteria for inclusion. And please refrain from personalising this discussion. You are doing yourself no favours. I strongly suggest you read this guide on the appropriate way to contribute to deletion discussions. Please also read this guide to learn how to sign your comments properly. Do not simply paste in a link to your talk page with a fake date stamp. Voceditenore (talk) 07:19, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral (Voceditenore) has proven otherwise that that you Voceditenore WP:COI on behalf of Voiphone. talk Looking to use any type of dirt to try to keep WP:SPAM article such as Voipfone listed in wiki, by mentioning I putting a fake stamp. talk mentioned "Do not simply paste in a link to your talk page with a fake date stamp". Maybe simon161388 thought he had to write the time stamp. Instead of being contructive editor, and finding ways to improve Voipfone articles. Besides you are proving that using this award is self promotion, and if Voiphone remains it is purely suggesting that wikipedia is reccommending Voiphone for phone service, as mentioned by talk. Besides you forgot to mention Voiphone on October 18 16:02 by Ip Address 69.23.116.82 who made a comment "(split up run-on sentence, removed external links that appeared to be self-promotion)" 69.23.116.82 removed those awards, including the 2013 Queen's Awards for Enterprise, and their references that were re added by talk. talk no one has contested the removal of these awards since removed once since October 2013, as they hold no merit as long as this WP:SPAM article Voipfone remains here. You keep mentioning this award written on page 48, when it is on page actually 47. Second of all Voceditenore, this award in not be re written to this Voipfone article, and is only mentioned if you visit the reference links. simon161388 Simon161388 (talk) 12:41, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have corrected the page number. No comment as to the rest of your continued vituperatiions. Voceditenore (talk) 12:54, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Notable. --doncram 00:46, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. As a recipient of the Queen's Awards for Enterprise it is notable.4meter4 (talk) 14:30, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Problems with the article have now been fixed. I'm not known for extending any favor to spam, but this is not spam. Straightforward article on notable company. DGG ( talk ) 04:36, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral It turns out that one of Voipfone directors Colin_Duffy also sits as a Internet_Telephony_Services_Providers’_Association director. Voipfone has won an ITSP award for several years straight as mentioned in the Voipfone article. Voipfone trades as the company iNet_Telecoms_Ltd Colin_Duffy has been the director for both companies since 2005. No other ITSPA member other than Voipfone had any of their directors elected or sat on the ITSPA board as a director. There is only three directors currently with ITSPA organisation, with Colin Duffy being one of them it makes almost seems like COI here with the ITSPA award being won by Voipfone. Simon161388 (talk) 14:52, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- My initial reaction was that a company with under 30 staff could not be notable. However the Queen's award points to notability. I hope that a link to this can be reinstated to the article. I do not give much weight to having a director involved in running the trade association: this may not reflect merit, but willingness to devote the requisite time to the role. Peterkingiron (talk) 19:29, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The link to the description of the company by the judges and the reason for giving the company the Queen's Awards for Enterprise is already in the article. (All the awards have online references.) At one point Simon161388 was issuing orders here that the citation could not be quoted because he considered it "spam". But there's no need to quote it. Readers can simply go to the reference. Voceditenore (talk) 19:46, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral -- Voceditenore, Just Because Voipfone has won the Queen's Awards for Enterprise last year. But the article is less than ten sentences long, please do explain why these references were removed in October of last year. Not a notable article for a company who won the Queen's Awards for Enterprise, but this article still lacks suitable content and notability outside of these Queen awards. Eight of the references mentioned is self promotion of interest, since it only mentions winning awards. Therefore makes and gives the impression from the content of the article, along with awards placed including the Queen's Awards for Enterprise as a mere recommendation from wikipedia.org to buy telephone services from the company's wikipedia article. Wikipedia is not the website for self promotion of products, and services. If Voipfone is are here to tell readers how many awards it has won over the past few years, and get the must needed exposure for winning the Queen's Awards for Enterprise, then Voipfone is in the wrong place. Speaking of which many notable companies such as Voipfone that have been around since 2005, should have 20 to 60 reliable references, and have 3 paragraphs of writing about their company in a neutral form. Most of these references should come from reliable third party sources that reputable,and mention about the company in general, other than just mentioning awards it won including the Queen's Awards for Enterprise. Since there is only two companies listed in the VoIP companies of the United_Kingdom, and as the Voipfone current six sentence article stands which makes it a candidate for self promotion in my personal opinion. Simon161388 (talk) 20:42, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Most companies except the largest will not have "20 to 60 " significant references--what they will have is 20 to sixty financial reports, and staff change announcements, and press releases. In general, most of these probably should not be in the article--the place for organizations to keep track of that cotnent in on their web site. We're NOT a directory, both in what articles we include, and what content we include in them. DGG ( talk ) 03:04, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Voipfone&oldid=1223668087"