Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2600hz

Add links
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 the multiple 'keep' votes from SPA/Socks/Meats which are basically 'I like it', we are left with a consensus to delete from the regular editors who are citing notability guidelines. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 11:19, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

2600hz

[edit]
2600hz (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 company appears to fail WP:CORP, as it lacks coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. VQuakr (talk) 18:16, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Tom Reedy I agree. I've attempted to make it read less so, because it looked like a feature list. I wonder if the feature list should be removed. There is other relevant content and value to the article, though. I would argue that this doesn't warrant deletion, but cleanup.Darren Schreiber (talk) 18:04, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm pretty sure that as "one of the co-founders of the open-source projects at 2600hz", you are proscribed from participating in this deletion discussion by WP:CONFLICT. Tom Reedy (talk) 20:06, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Tom Reedy I reviewed that document at the advice of a different user. My understanding is that I can participate in this, provide discussion points, etc. as long as I try to remain constructive and neutral, which I believe I've done here. I've also followed the policies by declaring my affiliation in my user profile.Darren Schreiber (talk) 20:12, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:24, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:24, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:24, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Gene93k I've added what I believe to be some reliable citations in the media. In addition, if you Google "2600hz Kazoo setup" or other such instructions, you'll find that people have made videos, tutorials and articles about the product to prove it's existence. This would seem to meet the criteria noted in Wikipedia's Notability guidelines - "A primary test of notability is whether people independent of the subject itself (or its manufacturer, creator, or vendor) have actually considered the company, corporation, product or service notable enough that they have written and published non-trivial, non-routine works that focus upon it.". Such examples include [[1]] who apparently made this guide on their own (no idea who they are), or [[2]] who is someone in Russia who apparently documented the platform as a video. There's a bunch of those types of references out there. Do these warrant linking in the article itself and, thus, help with notability to the point where you believe this is valid? Darren Schreiber (talk) 18:05, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: This is an active company and an active open-source organization. It has many, many users all over the globe. The fact that it may not be a recognized brand or get tons of media attention doesn't indicate it is notable. The work being done by this team is as notable as FreeSWITCH or Kamailio , both of which have similar organizational structures and pages on this site. While the content is in need of updating (and I will do that now) and the www.2600hz.org site has a very old design, the content is not only relevant but the users of this open-source project are very active. Removing them from Wikipedia is a mistake. This article should be kept, and updated. Darren Schreiber (talk) 03:19, 23 August 2015 (UTC) — Darren Schreiber (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
I think I've addressed the comments about lack of references (TechCrunch, GigaOm, Telecom Council certainly qualify as legitimate/reliable sources, no?) while also trying to improve the article. I'll work more to improve it further and clarify any confusion. As for User:Tom Reedy's comment about it sounding like product packaging, I'm not sure how to achieve the goal of indicating the accomplishments of the project while having it not read that way. I would be open to suggestions here and could work to improve it. But the citation and reference issue should be resolved.Darren Schreiber (talk) 08:40:00 27 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep - 2600hz is definitely a value to many telecom companies, I believe they are providing service to thousands of companies and increasing their reach daily across the globe. A company that truly is innovative in their thinking and providing the necessary tools/apps for their clients to use seamlessly. Jay Yoder 09:32:00 27 August 2015 (UTC) — JayTYo (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • Keep - 2600hz is a relevant and active company, located in a building neighbouring Wikipedia's in San Francisco. Many people work there and more are coming. Pierre Fenoll 10:14:00 27 August 2015 (UTC) — User:Radioxid (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • Keep - these guys are the most important outfit in open source converged telecommunications. Their technology is relevant and important. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.241.34.17 (talk) 17:20, 27 August 2015 (UTC) — 216.241.34.17 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Delete the majority of the coverage is award-winner lists and primary sources. The first GigaOm article gives me exactly zero faith in what they're saying ("from what I understand", "apparently", etc), and the second simply talks about one of their products. I did find two Techcrunch articles, but they're by the same author so I'm not sure how much added notability it will give. Unless there are secret refs hidden in the bowels of the internet somewhere, I'm unconvinced. Primefac (talk) 17:32, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Primefac Is the requirement for a Wikipedia page to stay that it must be listed in crap-tons of publications that are known to the average consumer? 2600hz is cited in a bunch of articles like FierceWireless (a pretty well known industry paper), GigaOm, TechCrunch, OPUS Research and has a slew of partnerships with other open-source projects including FreeSWITCH, Kamailio, Range Networks (OpenBTS) and so on. It takes about 5 minutes to google "2600hz" plus any of those terms to find this stuff, or you can watch the interviews on the VoIP Users Conference video interviews to learn more. What am I missing here? It seems like the burden of being notable has already been met by the edits I just did on the page.Darren Schreiber (talk) 17:36, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Darren Schreiber, the majority of the pieces you added were press releases, though the burden of evidence is starting to make me lean towards a keep. Not yet though, but on second thought I will strike my delete for now. Primefac (talk) 17:46, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Primefac OK, thanks. However, I'm still wondering if there are other ways to show notability. The original complaint was that the company lacked notability from unique sources. We've been discussed, referenced and compared to lots of other companies and have been invited to conferences to speak about our project regularly. But these things wouldn't be mainstream. Would notations of those items qualify to enhance the notability of the project? Open-source telecom is a surprisingly small but well-connected space, despite powering the majority of the world's telecom.Darren Schreiber (talk) 17:54, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Striking my strike (swayed back across the fence). Primefac (talk) 07:18, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - 2600hz is and has been active for years now, with a visible and thriving community. A simple google search would show years of activity in popular open source communities such as Google groups and Freenode IRC. While there seems to be a question about what qualifies as ‘notable’ articles (which in my opinion they do have) this software has appeal to a lesser-known audience but a lot of adoption. This is the very first open source cloud VoIP infrastructure that has enabled many companies to create and expand upon; competing with high and expensively licensed proprietary solutions. While many companies out there use 2600hz software for the base of their network infrastructure, many choose to place their own branding and company "sauce" over this software (As encouraged by the MPL license), many companies choose to market and advertise their brand over the community. The importance of this organization is their being the most relevant in bringing software that has enabled the creation and growth of many ITSPs and MSPs, who before could not secure the capital to invest in very expensive licensing of closed software. More companies all the time are using their open sourced software to develop their own ideas and disrupt the "big iron" telecom industry. There in lies the most important reason to maintain this article. They are linked and utilized on [1], [2], [3] links alone. Additionally, reviewing their annual conference webpage [4] and [5] has shows reputable sponsors, such as Polycom (NASDAQ: PLCM) Edgewater Networks (NASDAQ: EDGW) and many more. Public tech companies like these wouldn't support and sponsor a "blip" project. neurosys_zero (talk) 22:31, 27 August 2015 (UTC) — Neurosys zero (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Delete Lack of independent sources and fails WP:N. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 18:35, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Rsrikanth05 Can you please provide more detail here? The above discussion indicates that multiple public, independent sources have been cited and therefore it should meet criteria laid out in WP:N . The document is similar in nature to other open-source projects, many of which are featured on Wikipedia.Darren Schreiber (talk) 19:03, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Darren Schreiber: thanks for you work on helping to show what has been published related to the company. I am seeing lots and lots of links posted from new editors, that that does not really help to infer notability (as defined on Wikipedia), discussed here and here. We do not need a large quantity of sources, we need ones that are intellectually and financially independent - ie quality. So far I see a bunch of press releases or similar, a Russian blog, and two articles on TechCrunch by the same author at around the time the subject was presenting at TechCrunch's Disrupt conference. If there have been any sources presented that meet our requirement for "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject", I am not seeing them through the forest of the unusable stuff posted here. VQuakr (talk) 04:07, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@VQuakr: You are being fairly selective on what you pay attention to, then. Take a closer look. There are two articles cited from GigaOm, a fairly prominent tech publication (despite their financial troubles). There are video interviews cited from the Voice Users Conference, a well-known webcast that qualifies as both financially and intellectually independent. The TMCNet article is a story from a prominent company (Ooma) that is very much a large publicly traded company and is independent from 2600hz. The Telecom Council Spiffy's are an industry-backed organization who presented awards based on demonstrating the works of the organization, and are otherwise independent and intellectually separate with no vested interest in the success of 2600hz. The link from the FreeSWITCH organization qualifies as independent, since they don't actually use the software but are incorporated into the project and reviewed it. I think you are being fairly narrow in your analysis and seem to lack knowledge in the subject matter and space of telecom based on your responses. You continue to look for notability in publications you've heard of as a general consumer. That's not where the Wikipedia guidelines set the bar. While quality over quantity is true, there are now over 20 publications linked as references and at least some of those meet your burden. It is clear to me you have not spent the time reviewing them in detail. These publications represent significant achievements and are primarily by independent organizations. You do not appear to be judging this fairly, especially when reviewing other such articles on Wikipedia which appear to be acceptable. Darren Schreiber (talk) 14:05, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
So in response to a request to improve the signal-to-noise ratio we get more static. Gigaom was a blog, albeit a large, self-supporting one. Your characterization of FreeSWITCH as independent is novel but incorrect. Your claim that I will only accept a headline in the NYT is a straw man. Your observation that Wikipedia (particularly central discussion fora such as this one) is maintained by generalist volunteers is accurate, but not an argument for keeping any article. Your reference to other articles is a common but poor argument. VQuakr (talk) 19:00, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@VQuakr:Did you really just effectively state that GigaOm is some sort of irrelevant media outlet and is not worth considering as a reference? Are you joking? It is pretty clear to me at this point that you have some ulterior motive here. Darren Schreiber (talk) 19:14, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Did you really just effectively state that GigaOm is some sort of irrelevant media outlet... no, that would be another straw man, followed by an (exceptionally silly) ad hom. What I did write is that GigaOm does not appear to be a reliable, independent source as defined on Wikipedia. VQuakr (talk) 19:20, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@VQuakr: OK, let's try this route. I do not think you're being very cosntructive here. Since you seem to knock down every single attempt everybody has made to try and improve the page (you deleted half the content on it), have called everything noise, have cited tons of ambiguous rule sets for Wikipedia on notability, maybe you could provide a few examples of what IS considered useful, independent and reliable? Perhaps then you would also not be perceived as simply being negative and possibly even trolling (since you have now attacked multiple people including Rachel2600hz, neurosys and others on their talk pages) and attempted with FUD regarding their attempts at contributions. If you are truly trying to make Wikipedia a better, more collaborative and relevant place, try adding some samples and guidance on what should be here versus just knocking everything. Your behavior is unbelievably negative. Darren Schreiber (talk) 19:31, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@VQuakr: Can you please do me a favor and determine if the following citations are valid or not. To be honest I am extemely confused on what is deemed "relevant" and an "independent source." Please take a look at the following citations and let me know if you deem them credible. Citation 1, Citation 2, Citation 3, Citation 4, Citation 5. Please go through this individually instead of sending linking Wikipedia's general guidelines. Granularity on this issue will be more constructive.

References

  1. ^ http://www.vinixglobal.com
  2. ^ http://www.claritytelephones.com/2600hz-announces-new-telecom-innovations-and-partner-website-at-kazoocon/
  3. ^ http://technews.tmcnet.com/hosted-ivr/topics/hosted-ivr/articles/322962-ooma-business-good-business.htm
  4. ^ http://kazoocon.com
  5. ^ http://kazoocon.com/2013/index.html
  6. ^ http://www.quik.is
  7. ^ http://github.com/2600hz
  8. ^ http://github.com/2600hz
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/2600hz&oldid=1069058322"