User talk:David.a.gelman

The article Mobivox has been speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This was done because the article seemed to be about a real person, organization (band, club, company, etc.), or web content, but it did not indicate how or why the subject is notable, that is, why an article about that subject should be included in Wikipedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not indicate the notability of the subject may be deleted at any time. If you can indicate why the subject is really notable, you are free to re-create the article, making sure to cite any verifiable sources.

Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, and for specific types of articles, you may want to check out our criteria for biographies, for web sites, for musicians, or for companies. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. NawlinWiki (talk) 18:06, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Deleted again -- a passing mention in one newspaper story doesn't meet Verifiability. NawlinWiki (talk) 18:49, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Mobivox
A tag has been placed on Mobivox, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G11 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article seems to be blatant advertising which only promotes a company, product, group, service or person and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become an encyclopedia article. Please read our the guidelines on spam as well as the Business' FAQ for more information.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding  to the top of the page (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. ukexpat (talk) 16:33, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

You should read the guidelines at WP:Business' FAQ, WP:COI and WP:ADVERT. Articles not complying with these guidelines are likely to be deleted. The underlying theme is that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not an advertising medium or a business directory, and that you should not be writing about your own business. JohnCD (talk) 21:46, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

I guess that what you meant to do when you created the page "David.a.gelman/Mobivox Draft" was to make a page in your user space which you could work on before moving it into the "article space" of the main encyclopedia. So I have moved it for you into user:David.a.gelman/Mobivox Draft, and removed the speedy-deletion tag. But before you put much work into it, please read the guidelines linked from the paragraph above this. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 21:57, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Mobivox
I have looked again at your draft Mobivox page, and I am willing to help you get it in. The all-important thing is the external references, of which you have enough to establish notability. When we have got it tweaked right, I will put it in, with a note on the talk page that I have done so at your request as you have a COI but have been correctly following the guidelines in the Business' FAQ.

Note that this is no guarantee that it will not be challenged - I do not have any special authority within WP, and indeed nobody can give an article a "free pass". Nor am I particularly an expert at article construction. One other thing you should bear in mind is that once the article is in you will not own it (read WP:OWN) and cannot prevent others from editing it - that is one important way in which WP differs from a business directory.

The first thing I have done is to make the references visible. This is a rather abstruse process; what you have to do is to bracket the full url with single square brackets [ ], and outside that put. Within the square brackets, follow the full url with a single space and then whatever text you actually want displayed: e.g. will display "Mobivox". To get them to display, at the end of the article you need to put a heading ==References== and underneath it. Don't ask me why it's like that - that's the way the wiki software works.

I have done that to your article. Looking at the result, my immediate reaction (and this is not a usual one) is that it is over-referenced. There are 22. Out of those:


 * Eleven are Mobivox. I think you should trim that to say the 3 most important.


 * No. 11, IDG Ventures, doesn't seem to say anything about Mobivox; nor, as far as I could see, does no. 16, Webware 100 awards - (but no. 17 does). Suggest removing 11 and 16.


 * No. 18, FT.com requires registration before you can read it; but that's free, and it's a prestigious name, so maybe leave it in.

Once the references are all visible, we don't need the "See also" para, so I have taken it out.

Have a think about that; also have a think, as will I, about the first paragraph, which is still rather promotional in tone. The article should be about why Mobivox is an interesting company, not why the reader should sign up. Perhaps trimming that would help trim the Mobivox references.

Regards, JohnCD (talk) 21:21, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Reply
John, First, thank you for all your help and time. Second, I totally understand you have no special standing on Wikipedia. Also I completely understand the lack of ownership of any article and that it is open and that this is the driving force behind Wikipedia.

In regards to some of your comments, references 11-13, and #16 are all meant as links not for reference purposes but merely as external links to these organizations that have been mentioned. I tried tow rite the article as I wish many Wikipedia articles were written, that is to say, fully referenced and linked to those topics it touches upon. Often when reading Wikipedia I wish that authors were more thorough in not only their citation but in their connection with the outside world. That is why those links were their, they were never meant to become references. Second, I have rewritten the opening paragraph to read:

“Mobivox is an international calling service utilizing VoIP and IVR to bring reduced rate calling to those that register as Mobivox users. Mobivox combines VoIp and IVR in a new way to yet another telephony product. Mobivox stands as a direct challenge to Skype by taking the same concept as Skype but removing barriers to access like hardware. Mobivox further distinguishes itself with it's IVR component dubbed “VoxGirl” and its suite of supporting features.”

This reworking eliminates references #2, 3, 4, 6, and 7, all of which were Mobivox.com references.

Finally, since all information relating to the aforementioned “suite of supporting features” has been removed, I propose we add another section entitled “Features” which documents some of the features which Mobivox offers. I understand this makes the article more susceptible to accusations of advertising, but we could eliminate talk of pricing and cost of services and instead just strictly note what is offered.

Please let me know what you think. David.a.gelman (talk) 17:52, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Sounds OK
Make your suggested changes on the draft version and I'll have a look at it. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 20:48, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
 * What's there looks OK to me - do you want to add your proposed "Features" section? What I'll do when it's ready is, put a "comment" at the top (visible only when about to edit the page) saying, before flagging this for deletion read the talk page; and on the talk page I will explain what we have done and that we are following the Business' FAQ guidelines. JohnCD (talk) 22:33, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Features
I put in the "Features" section but if it is going to cause headaches it can certainly be cut.David.a.gelman (talk) 15:06, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

It's in
I have put Mobivox back in. We'll see how it goes. It could maybe have more categories? I looked at the long list in Skype but didn't know which might be appropriate. JohnCD (talk) 20:15, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks so much for all your help. I really do appreciate it. I'll think about ways it can be improved over the next couple of days. David.a.gelman (talk) 17:55, 1 April 2008 (UTC)