Talk:Voipfone

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Disputed deletion[edit]

We contest the deletion of this post. Companies are allowed listing if they have Notability.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:CORP

A company, corporation, organization, group, product, or service is notable if it has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works, the source of which is both:

   * independent of the company, corporation, organization or group itself, or of the product's or service's manufacturer or vendor, and
   * reliable.

This criterion includes published works in all forms, such as (for examples) newspaper articles, books, television documentaries....

Voipfone is highly notable in the UK as an original developer of VoIP software and services to small business in a unique way.

They have been written about and broadcasted (both TV & Radio)extensively by independent, 3rd party publications including SKY TV, BBC World Service, The Guardian,VON magazine, Total Business Magazine etc.

Reference articles and other media can be found here:

https://www.voipfone.co.uk/About_Us.php

I'm retracting the speedy deletion per the press shown above, please incorporate it into the article. BJTalk 11:54, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

COI[edit]

I have tagged this as a conflict of interest as the biggest contributor is obviously closely connected to the company, and has copied marketing material into this article.Martin451 (talk) 20:54, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

This article needs a big trim of all the wp:advert and blatent "look how good we are" stuff. Wikipedia is not here to advertise prices at all, yet alone 3 times in an article.Martin451 (talk) 23:12, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

The biggest contributor claims not to have a WP:COI and thus not be connected with the company. I have stubbed the article as it is a blatant copyright violation of http://www.voipfone.co.uk/About_Us.php. Please do not re-add this material.Martin451 23:17, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

The biggest contributor is very obviously connected to the company, despite the editor's claims to the contrary. Their choice of editor name and their articles (the Lee Rose article shown in the edit history was actually a now-deleted page for the company's owner) are consistent with this. I've advised the editor on their talk page to cease editing here. 69.23.116.182 (talk) 00:12, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Continual company founder changes[edit]

One or more editors keeps changing the names of the people who founded the company. These changes are not cited and contradict the information available in the "about" section of the company's website. Please knock it off or provide a source for this information. 69.23.116.182 (talk) 16:06, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Deletion Review Board[edit]

Somone keeps adding promotion material that has been removed. Since no editor has no intention of correcting this matter, only to prove how self centred the company is with the awards it won, not proper wiki material. This is not the first time those awards were removed. This article should have be deleted five years ago. Let's get this article removed today, and maybe when someone in the company has the time to write a proper article, so it can stay 209.172.25.71 (talk) 16:05, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Here is the formal notice in the talk so anyone could comment on voipfone article 209.172.25.71 (talk) 16:13, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Removal of Promotional Material from Article[edit]

Removing citations and references to the article, as those self promotional articles were added to prove very WP:Pointy keep of the article, and very disruptive behaviour to the editor who added them. Since I reviewed every single written word in the online newspaper articles in the that were mentioned in the two articles, only to reveal that there was very little mentioned about VoIP, and the company. So I removed the online newspaper articles on the fact they were written based on the fact of look how good we are" winning awards stuff on promotional coverage, and irrelevant as to the company's development of VoIP technology.

I removed London based as the company has no mentioning of location anywhere in any articles, since company also mentioned in the removed articles that it has no physical office in the UK, and also found the fact the company is listing it's trading address with companies house as 2 CAMBRIDGE GARDENS, HASTINGS, EAST SUSSEX, TN34 1EH. Which would be deceptive and inappropriate to keep the company location as being London Based.

Annual turnover could not be listed as there no significant prove and the articles that were removed can not be used since it did not verify the year that the company made £3.5 million.

I also removed all references to the Internet Telephony Services Providers’ Association, since the references were not from a third party neutral based source, so citation needed from a third party source to verify the sentence as fact. A deep link from the itspa website does not qualify under the wiki notability guidelines as a neutral party and a reliable source to back the claim. I even removed one external link, as one outbound link is sufficient enough.

Besides this topic does not meet WP:GNG. All but a few of the 50+ articles that come up are press releases and the few that are not only have a sentence or two mentioning the company. Some commercial organisations may meet Wikipedia notability guidelines but care must be taken in determining if they are truly notable or whether they are an attempt at using Wikipedia for free advertising.

Wikipedia editors should not recreate or keep articles based on the purpose of overtly or covertly advertising on wikipedia or to have wiki endorse a company product or placement. Editors please do not restore any material that was removed as they are being contested as not notable, or self promoting sourced material. 209.172.25.140 (talk) 00:39, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

I understand you feel strongly that the article should be deleted, however there was an AfD discussion just last month and the result was KEEP. Removing all the citations from the article is not a good way to make your argument. CorporateM (Talk) 05:04, 22 April 2014 (UTC)