Wikipedia:Deletion review/VOIPBuster

The following discussion is preserved as an Archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this page.

[edit] VOIPBuster

The page on VOIPBuster should not have been deleted. It is about a useful VOIP resource and many similar instant messengers are already featured on Wikipedia.

After the first deletions calling it an advertisement, I reworked the content and made it more facts-oriented. Did the admin see the updated version before deleting it again? I was not even notified of this deletion. I used to believe that such decisions were made after informing the contributor!

Please, Please, Please RESTORE this page for the benefit of another wikipedians. It is not an advertisement as much as Rediff BOL, another instant messenger entry on Wikipedia is not an advertisement.

--Vishaltayal 19:14, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Assertion for Notability: as per WP:N

• Featured in The Guardian, Tech Review Section
• Features in Telecom Paper link here
• Tagged in Download.com as Popular with 6,720 downloads as on 7th May 2006.link here

--Vishaltayal 11:17, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Update: I have notified Makemi at his talk page so that he can undelete and list this article on AfD as per the consensus.--vishaltayal 18:33, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

• Undelete and list on AfD. Was deleted out of process with the non-existent CSD 'advertising', and from then on as previously deleted content (even though it was deleted out of process), twice with summaries calling it 'sickening' (WP:BITE, anyone?). Not very admirable behaviour for admins. - ulayiti (talk) 20:58, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete and list on AfD. While this does read like advertising to me, this is not a speedy deletion criteria. The admin who called this "sickening" should be ashamed. Thryduulf 22:11, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted, WP:SNOW. The "facts-oriented" version is still spam. Just zis Guy you know? 23:22, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. If VOIPBuster is considered to be an advert, we also need to delete from Wikipedia, many other instant messengers which hardly anyone else knows about i.e they can also be considered as advertisements of their respective companies. Deleting some and keeping others is NOT FAIR. Some examples are Camfrog, Rediff BOL and Nate. I wonder how are these kept!--Vishaltayal 07:09, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
  • WP:SNOW is not policy, especially when this is about a speedy. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEMES?) 02:12, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete and list on Afd Neither Spam, nor WP:SNOW are valid reasons for speedy deletions, and even articles that start out at adverts may often be salvagable. (google returns about 750,000 results, so it's conceivable that this is notable enough to pass Afd) Regards, MartinRe 23:39, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment A quick search found one such link: a review from The Guardian discussing Skype, Vonage and Voipbuster[1]. Regards, MartinRe 11:13, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete and list on AfD per above. WP:SNOW should not be used to defend an admin's revert warring over an invalid-on-its-face Speedy. Vslashg (talk) 23:50, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete and list on AfD. This is not a valid speedy, per the above. Cynical 10:55, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete and AfD The sources given convince me that WP:SNOW does not apply. No other remotely valid speedy rationale has been given. Xoloz 17:04, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
• Comment I have restored the article. In light of the sources given, I will not myself put it up for AfD. However, I was under the impression that posts of straight advertising by someone who clearly works for the company were often speedied, but perhaps I acted too rashly in this case. I maintain, however, that it was pretty sickening advertising, and if you're the advertising guy for a company, you should be able to take it. I think we as a community need to talk seriously about how Wikipedia is used for advertising and how we should deal with it. I hate spam, and I hate dealing with it, and I don't think it should be content in an encyclopedia, but others are free to disagree. Mak (talk) 19:30, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment I DO NOT work for VOIPBuster. It is simply a product I use as much as I use Skype, MSN Messenger and Yahoo! Messenger, all of which have their respective articles on Wikipedia. My article on this product was based on its utility and popularity and not for any other purpose.--vishaltayal 20:30, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an Archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this page.