Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zoiper


 * 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. The consensus is that there is insufficient evidence that this software is notable, with the given sources being judged as non-significant-coverage.  Phantom Steve / talk &#124; contribs \ 05:21, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Zoiper

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Non-notable software. I don't even see an indication of importance in the article. Fails WP:GNG with two articles found in a Google News search. Neither of which represent significant coverage. A Google News archive search provides several hits but none seem to be independent (are PR pieces) or don't constitute significant coverage.

The article has one reference which was written by a Toma Kashamov. Google searches seem to indicate that Toma has written several descriptions of the software which would indicate that he has an association with the subject meaning that the source isn't independent and can't be used to establish notability.

I PRODed the article to give the author time to establish notability but the author removed the PROD, stating, "Grant notability and remove PROD." I'm not sure how notability is "granted" but I don't feel that the user has established importance, let alone notability, which is why I created this AfD. WCS100 (talk) 02:53, 19 September 2013 (UTC)


 * What level of notability are you looking for? Zoiper is quite popular VoIP software that I use on daily basis, so I was quite surprised it is missing from the Comparison list (given it is more popular and active than much of the other entries there). I know that independent sources are to be used, but it is hard when it comes to a commercial product. Still I found an article in Techrunch revealing the importance of Zoiper for another fast-growing company. Another article published on Apple.com is also mentioning Zoiper. There are plenty of other reviews and articles over the web, , , etc. You can also see that it has hundreds of thousands of downloads in Google Play and App Store.


 * So, it is quite obvious that (1) Zoiper exists and (2) it is popular and important enough for lots of people and businesses. Hence, it deserves its mentioning in Wikipedia. Perhaps you would be able to help me pick the proper sources establishing the notability? Kouber (talk) 10:12, 19 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia has a guideline for what will be included on Wikipedia called WP:NOTABILITY. It's a huge guideline that I won't just throw at you to read - the easiest way to establish "notability" is to show that the subject has received significant coverage from reliable and independent sources ("sources" so generally 2+).  WP:NOTABILITY (WP:N) has many subsections for different subjects like music, books, artists, biographies, sports, etc. but nothing specifically for software which is why the General Notability Guideline or WP:GNG is applied.  You might be able to argue that WP:ORG applies since the name of the organization is also the name of the software but I don't think there's anything to be gained by doing that.
 * You've provided several sources which is a great start. I'll go through them one-by-one.
 * The TechCrunch article only mentions Zoiper in passing which doesn't constitute "significant coverage". The Apple article also only mentions Zoiper in passing which doesn't constitute significant coverage.  The VOIP Supply article has 15 words about Zoiper, along with several other VOIP products, which doesn't constitute significant coverage.  The MGraves.com article is definitely significant coverage but I'm not sure that it can be used to establish notability per WP:NEWSBLOG.  I'm not sure that the blog.easyofficephone.com article can be used to establish notability for the same reason (WP:NEWSBLOG).  The AppAnnie.com link is just a store link and isn't a secondary news source.
 * If you have any more sources, that would be great. I'll look for more as well.  The two blog articles are definitely significant coverage but I'm not sure that they can be used to establish notability.  Rather than make that the point that's considered by others, I think if we find non-blog significant coverage from independent and reliable sources, that those sources are blogs will be a non-issue.
 * I'll take a look today. WCS100 (talk) 15:31, 19 September 2013 (UTC)


 * I've spotted a few more. Zoiper is mentioned in two books - The 3CX IP PBX Tutorial, and Asterisk: The Future of telephony (under its initial name - Idefisk), as well as in the official Asterisk quick start guide. Also in a Master degree thesis, a blog article, and another article that in my opinion qualifies for significant coverage. Kouber (talk) 16:27, 19 September 2013 (UTC)


 * I've discovered Zoiper in one more book, a news article, (looks like a significant coverage), and yet another article with Zoiper in it. Many sites are also including Zoiper in their VoIP software comparison lists:, , , . Kouber (talk) 16:32, 23 September 2013 (UTC)


 * The http://asterisk.ru/ reference isn't significant coverage. It just a sentence that mentions it.  The http://beqrious.com/ reference just mentions once that Zoiper is a VOIP service and doesn't look like anything close to significant coverage to me, either.  It doesn't even have a publication date or author.  A masters thesis seems like a bad place to look for notability since they're often inherently looking at subjects that aren't well known.  The tutorials a guides aren't independent, in my opinion.  A blog fundamentally can't be used to establish notability.
 * All of the rest of these are just mentions as well. I'm not opposed to accepting that all of these mentions may establish notability but given that they're all old mentions (most of them come around 2009), I don't think that those mentions will lead to significant coverage.
 * I'm at weak delete at this point. It seems like a service that was starting to gain traction, as far as media attention goes, then everything fell off.  I don't see that changing to suggest that it will be notable, based on the plethora of mentions it has received.  I'm rather indifferent at this point, though. WCS100 (talk) 21:22, 10 October 2013 (UTC)


 * In fact, the http://beqrious.com/ article is all about Zoiper and the QR button it introduced in order to solve "one of the most cumbersome things about using a VoIP service". It is a significant coverage, revealing one of its advantageous features, compared to other VoIP softphones. Kouber (talk) 09:20, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I would argue that beqrious.com is not a reliable source. It describes itself as a blog, has no author posted for the article, and has no clear editorial policy available on its site.Dialectric (talk) 16:49, 21 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:50, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:50, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:50, 19 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 02:17, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

 
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Tom Morris (talk) 09:53, 6 October 2013 (UTC)




 * Strong Keep The company is well established, offering a consistent development of a product over the last 8+ years. It's not a start-up, here today, gone tomorrow. It's also in an specialist industry segment in which there is not that many players, probably in this case, <20-30 organizations. The article is well written, and well presented. I think it easily satisfies the WP:GNG guidelines. scope_creep talk 16:42, 06 October 2013 (UTC)
 * What part of GNG does it satisfy? It seems like you're willing to grant notability based on your perception of the subject's notability.  GNG is very clear - can you provide at least two instances of significant and independent coverage from reliable sources? WCS100 (talk) 21:22, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
 * First of all, I think it's bad form to aggressively comment the people who are discussing the WP:AFD. Nominate and then wait for the outcome, however long it takes. The reason, I've posted a Strong Keep, is simple, I believe the article is notable and I wouldn't vote for it's inclusion otherwise. I believe that easily 30-50% of WP could be deleted tomorrow and not effect that standard or depth of knowledge it WP contains. But it's a modern encyclopedia, not some 20th century Encyclopædia Britannica version. That 30-50% of superficial nonsense, that could be deleted now, is what makes the majority of under 30's come to this site, as is this article. And it's needed, as is this nominated article. I think the problem with WP:GNG is they were written for an age that no longer exists. Sure they are guidelines, but action ignores a whole raft of humanities actions, by the nature, can't exist in WP, because the guidelines are too narrow in scope. They have never been tested in a purely logical manner to determine if they cover the totality of man's knowledge. Onto this article. I'm a software engineer, and I can tell the software industry are creating new, elegant software types, modes of thought and action, which never existed before. This is one of them. Being an inclusionist by nature, you'd normally think I would automatically vote for this article. If it was a start-up, yip. But this company is working on a product type, which didn't exist until 2005-2006. It's an established company. And that is clearly notable. scope_creep talk 18:07, 11 October 2013  (UTC)
 * Aggressively comment? WP:AFD very clearly states that AFDs are, "where Wikipedians discuss whether an article should be deleted".  It doesn't say, "where Wikipedias state their case and wait for the outcome."  It's a discussion, not closing arguments.  Given the amount of time that you've participated at this project, I'm rather alarmed that you'd rather participants just state their opinion and wait for it to be judged.  I would appreciate it if, in the future, you wouldn't comment on me as a participant (e.g. my "aggressive comment") and would focus on the discussion.  Otherwise, this would be considered a personal attack per WP:NPA.  I would let this slide if you hadn't been around as long as you have been.
 * As for your argument that "easily 30-50% of WP could be deleted tomorrow", etc., please see WP:OTHERSTUFF. That argument has been extensively covered and refuted to the point that it's been marked as an argument to avoid in AfDs.
 * I won't get into a deltionism/inclusionist argument here. Frankly, I think that's irresponsible.  I stand by my original question.  There are clear inclusion guidelines given in WP:N.  You stated that it clear satisfies WP:GNG but have failed to provide a single reference to support your argument.  If you want to contribute to this conversation in a positive manner, just provide some references. If/when you do, I'll be the first to agree with you that the subject satisfies WP:GNG.  If it's "clearly notable", please cite the relevant part of WP:N that the subject satisfies and back up your opinion with evidence and not hollow opinions. WCS100 (talk) 04:54, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Cut out the aggressive commenting, dude. There is really no need for it. It's bad form for the article WP:AFD nominator to comment on the discussion process. It's really against the spirit and letter of WP to hassle commentators in this manner. You've made your case. Let it lie, until a decision is made. It's the standard process used in Roman Common law as used in the last 20 centuries. As for the guidelines, in search of some sentence which defines exactly a match for my argument. You won't find it. Guidelines are defined in the Oxford English Dictionary as 'a general rule, principle, or piece of advice'. The WP:GNG are merely guidelines to be interpreted. I'm not going to comment on this further. scope_creep talk 14:10, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
 * WCS100 (talk), forget that comment I made about not commenting on the AFD process. Apparently it is allowed, and very common. scope_creep talk 14:48, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Apology accepted. WCS100 (talk) 21:20, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
 * If I'm understanding you correctly, and please correct me if I'm not, you believe that using WP:IAR is a good argument for this case. I see your point and think it holds water but I simply disagree that this is a case where it should be used. WCS100 (talk) 21:25, 12 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete per nomination. Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:36, 9 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete - non-notable software. as discussed above, all sources found thusfar for this article do not meet the threshold of significant coverage in a reliable source, as they are developer's sites, blogs, or incidental mentions. Dialectric (talk) 16:42, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ymblanter (talk) 07:59, 19 October 2013 (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.