Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sip phone


 * 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 was pointed out, the article isn't salvageable in this form, and an example of an article that it might be worth basing a worthwhile article on was given.  E LIMINATOR JR  23:13, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Sip phone

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Being used by a few users as a sort of review page. Doesn't seem to be redeemable in this format, and constantly policing it to remove POV statements sounds like a waste of time. Fightindaman 02:04, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete - per nom. POV, and might violate WP:NOT --H| H irohisat  Talk 02:31, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete - includes a fair amount of editorial (WP:SOAP) and original research (WP:NOR). Additionally, it is totally orphaned (What links here). ALTON   .ıl  02:46, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete While SIP is a notable network protocol, this article appears to be just as the nominator states: "a sort of review page." Delete per WP:NOT, etc. — Travis talk  02:56, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep Page has been rewritten, but some original research remains. For example, the Cisco ATA-186/188 is described as a "Useable Adapter." Also, the USB handsets and adapters section, for example, is written in a rather informal and unencyclopedic tone. If the OR is removed and references are added, the article should stay. The writing style is not grounds for deletion. — Travis talk  14:16, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
 * How does one cite "I bought some, opened the boxes, plugged them in, and saw that it creates a Windows sound device?". At some level, every article on WP has some original research. -- TomXP411[Talk] 23:43, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Trust me, you can and should cite it. Articles lose featured status by missing one or two citations. ALTON   .ıl  06:49, 26 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Remarks on page to ask for non-deletion: This page is still obviously being built.  The end goal of this page, and the purpose behind it, is to give the general public a way to weed through the massive amount of SIP phones that have started to flood the market.  In implementation, this page should end up as a way for users to compare SIP phones and use it as a method to decide which to use.  Personally, I would compare the end-result of this page to be along the lines of the Comparison of revision control software page which I honestly find to be a very useful guide, and have used several times.  I agree that right now, it is pretty bare and review-ish, but that is because it has just started to be created.  Once there is much more information gathered, a proper end-user page can be laid out, generated, and filled in. MitoTranin 04:17, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment - well, the problem is that it contains original Research, and can be a violation of WP:NOT. --H| H irohisat  Talk 05:08, 25 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Guys this is a little quick off the mark - there would be no pages in wikipedia if you deleted everything as soon as it got started. What we have right now is just a list of headings to flesh out with information.  Our aim is to provide a comprehensive guide to configuration and capabilities of the many SIP devices available.   Original research does not apply as the information is all out there and we're just collecting it in one place.  It's amazing how many wikilawyers can cite policy but not offer suggestions on how to improve the article. Terrymr 04:49, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment - The point is, that this article is considered for deletion. --H| H irohisat  Talk 05:16, 25 August 2007 (UTC) If that is the case, citing sources will do the case. --H| H  irohisat  Talk 05:26, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment - List of SIP software is an appropriate example showing how a large subset of this SIP Phone data could be organized. If we want this article to continue, avoid pricing information, review-like comments, or guide book type instructions, those are all contrary to wikipedia policy. --Yngling —The preceding  signed but undated.
 * Comment - To better comply with the corresponding types of articles, I moved the page to Comparison of SIP Phones and also created a link on the corresponding List of SIP software page. MitoTranin 06:30, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

dberninger —The preceding  signed but undated.
 * Remarks on page to ask for non-deletion: Tagging for deletion within 24 hrs of the page creation seems to make the deletion policy moot...which says  "If the page can be improved, this should be solved through regular editing, rather than deletion. A variety of tags can be added to articles to note the problem."  The article is attracting new editors to Wikipedia that may need some education regarding article policies, but 24 hrs does not provide much of a chance for this education process.  The article clearly does not violate any of the abuse rationale for deletion, so its unclear what would justify the rapid push for deletion.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dberninger (talk • contribs) 12:16, August 25, 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment/concerns  The headline of the article is misleading as the article speaks of SIP hardphones only. The article is prose, it will invite people to dump their advertizing spam into it. If we decide to keep the article, it should be reorganized in a form similar to Comparison_of_VoIP_software. --Kgfleischmann 13:58, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment Retort - Again, the article is still less than 24 hours old. We have hardly had enough time to organize all hard-phones together, let alone soft-phones.  We have actually had discussions about adding such soft-phones into the page, but it's still less than 24 hours old!  Give us a chance to flesh it out and actually provide the content that you are criticizing us for not yet even having a chance to include.  And as I said before, the layout is still far from complete and finalized.  If we were to try to create a table for direct comparison at this point, it would be a very bare table, since we don't have enough content to fill the table with! MitoTranin 15:01, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment/concerns You probably have seen, that the Softphones can be found as well in Comparison of VoIP software as in List of SIP software, so there is absolutely no need to add them to this article. So renaming would make the thing a bit more neutral. Also, if you are working on the article, consider my second proposal.The list structure of Comparison_of_VoIP_software makes it easier to compare facts and not the opinions of the authors. It so gives some protections against advertising spammers, who are a problem in the Wikipedia. Btw. a deletion normally gives you 7 days to improve the  article.  --Kgfleischmann 15:15, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment Retort - The first line of the article narrows the objective as SIP devices. This clarification can be improved by stating SIP devices that do not require connection to the PC.  In any case, the urgency of deletion does not make sense in the current context.  It actually tends to be self-fulfilling at this stage - the tag for deletion tends to discourage people from working on improvements lest they waste them time on a doomed article.
 * @[User:dberninger|dberninger]]: Sorry, the name of the article is misleading. I fear, the form will attract spammers and thus will cause problems. I would prefer to keep the article, but if no changes will take place during the next 7 days, it is better to delete it. --Kgfleischmann 17:13, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete Why spend money on advertising when there's the free encylopedia that anyone can edit? Mandsford 17:40, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
 * - Side note: I suggest the above comment be deleted, as looking at the user's discussion page, he has many bouts and disputes with deletions of his own. His comment does not really have any bearing on the content of the article, and I now believe that he is just out to vandalize others that are on grounds for deletion. (Remove comment on grounds of guideline "Deleting material not relevant to improving the article".  I will also point out his  blatant spam in many (if not all) current articles in the AfD dispute MitoTranin 18:51, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment Do you see any advertising? In the end this will simply boil down to a comparison chart with descriptive information!  That's not advertising!  If you are determined to delete this article, then you should also delete the other 6201 (of the 6202 results of this simple search) articles in the wikipedia that are created on the same premise!  —Preceding unsigned comment added by MitoTranin (talk • contribs) 18:33, August 25, 2007 (UTC)


 * It's not necessary to preface every comment with a notification. It doesn't matter whether it has been only 24 hours or if it could possibly be confused. What most editors do at this point, Mito, is rebuild the page in their userspace (like User:MitoTranin/work), and bring it into mainspace when it addresses all these concerns that everyone is bringing up. Right now, the problems people have brought up is that a list of this nature will contain much original research, is an extremely esoteric list and comparison, and it is a fork of information that could be added to extant articles. These are not all easily fixed. However, when a discussion becomes as mutilated as this one the page will usually not be deleted (I would note however, no one has given a compelling argument as to why it should be kept), but those who called for its deletion will keep a close watch on it to make sure you do slip up. I suggest you work on the page on your userpage so that you don't create a rushed effort merely to avert someone's notion that it should be destroyed.
 * I do realize that some of these articles are useful, but that is not the point. Wikipedia is not supposed to contain every bit of useful information - the WoW addict would vouch for inclusion of comparisons between weapons and whatnot - and the reasons why those other articles stay is because they don't have the concerns that people bring up here. If you can bring that article up to that standard, only then will it be kept. ALTON   .ıl  06:49, 26 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletions.   -- the wub  "?!"  18:28, 25 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete - although it contains useful information, it's not suitable for Wikipedia, even if it is changed into a neutral table format as on various software comparison pages. VoIP phones are likely to become a commodity product in the next few years, like regular phones, TV sets, MP3 players, cellphones, and so on, with hundreds of different models on the market at the same time and models being replaced by new models every year. A Wikipedia-article just doesn't work in the long term. Han-Kwang (t) 20:05, 28 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment Retort - The delete argument makes a giant presumtion about the future absent any evidence. The fact TV's are commodities 80 years after their arrival does not make SIP devices commodities.  In fact, the purpose of the SIP Phone article is to document dimensions relevant for comparison of the devices.  How is something a commodity even before we know how to compare any two examples? dberninger  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dberninger (talk • contribs) 10:58, August 29, 2007 (UTC)


 * None of the problems described seems to describe a reason for deletion.  It can't be argued tht SIP phones are not notable or that any article about SIP phones necessarily fails due to the nature of the subject matter.   I would therefore refer the pro-delete camp to this :

"Before listing an article for deletion here, consider whether a more efficient alternative is appropriate: For problems that do not require deletion, including duplicate articles, articles needing improvement, pages needing redirects, or POV problems, be bold and fix the problem or tag the article appropriately. " Terrymr 15:59, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
 * 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.