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 keep per absence of delete preferences. Non-admin closure by Skomorokh 00:00, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comparison of web conferencing software

[edit]

Nominating on behalf of User:GaryECampbell who feels that this article had been created purely to promote another article and should be deleted. I am currently neutral as I'm not completely sure whether or not an article like this belongs in Wikipedia, or whether or not it is notable. As it stands it is unreferenced, and could be original research. Beloved Freak 19:03, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- Beloved Freak 19:12, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note to All: I am withdrawing my AfD nomination for this article. - GaryECampbell (talk) 09:36, 6 July 2008 (UTC) [reply]

Comment: - To correct my statement below: - There is no proof that 206.80.0.98 is related to any Wikipedia vendor article. There is no proof that 206.80.0.98 spamming to the Microsoft Live Meeting article (and other vendor articles) is related to any Wikipedia vendor article. There is no proof that vendors are editing ratings for their competitors. There is no proof that 206.80.0.98 is associated to the person that created this article. There is no proof edits led by 206.80.0.98 on July 1 to this article, then followed by the creator of this article the same day to the web conferencing article after both took a two week wiki break are related. And there is no proof posting a 2 week old copy of the entire Web Conferencing article to accomplish a 1 line edit was anything but an error any experienced editor could make. And there is no proof of any conflict of interest. We all know ISP's retain connectivity records that provide identification information. But there is no action or reason I know of at present to dig deeper.

I therefore apologize for the inconvenience and my incorrect statement of conclusions. I apologize for stating such in this limited exposure space. However, gross errors about the market leader WebEx (purchased by Cisco for $3 billion dollars) provided by 206.80.0.98 and the author were highly exposed in the web conferencing article which is the #1 search result returned by Google when searching for web conferencing. Let's hope all such errors and impacts will be forgotten. Frost and Sullivan states that small audience Web conferencing is expected to generate a billion dollars of revenue in 2008, and large audience web conferencing will generate $400 million in revenue in 2008. This space is not a playground, it is serious business. As I had stated below, Wikipedia readers must be provided with accurate reliable information, preferably tested with all claims confirmed. Since I was able to resolve this concern in a different and non-conflicting manner, I withdrew my 2nd AfD nomination. If others wish to replace my 2nd nomination, my suggestion (as BelovedFreak suggests), is to focus on the notability and factual citations (none) of this specific article (rather than the general subject) that will affect a billion+ dollar market. - GaryECampbell (talk) 07:39, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete - The article was created by editors of PictureTalk. They are a web conferencing vendor. The same editors created this article. They are creating a comparison article which includes themselves and their competitors. Delete as per WP:V, WP:SPS and WP:COI. I also question the concept of such a complex article by Wikipedians as per WP:NOR (no orginal research), as 60+ vendors are in this space, with 100's of points that need to be considered. This article is linked in Web Conferencing, it should be replaced with references to notable research companies such as Frost and Sullivan, IDC or Wainhouse Research that provide vendor comparisons people can trust - GaryECampbell (talk) 20:22, 2 July 2008 (UTC).[reply]

:*Comment - I have been involved in this marketplace for 8 years and must therefore acknowledge a possible WP:COI. As an expert in this field who has reviewed many such articles by notable trusted research companies, I find the content highly suspect. As such, it caught my attention, hence my nomination to AfD. GaryECampbell (talk) 14:49, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I think it would be better if there isn't another more neutral article on it already, that one be created (or re-created) by people with knowledge on the field and not have WP:COI. From the ground up, it doesn't have to be complete immediately, but it would be good to have. Just out of curiosity, how does "nominating on behalf of" work? Is it really that much more work, or is it tagged, or....?ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 20:07, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

:::*Reply to Noian - I'm not sure I agree. Such articles (complex technical product comparisons) are a big can of worms. Such articles can be legally contentious. It will be constantly slanted by vendors, their employees, competition, users and paid puppets. Such is the case with this article (created by a vendor rating their own product) which fails under WP:COI, WP:NOR, WP:V. GaryECampbell (talk) 22:56, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to Noian I'm not sure how "nominating of behalf" works, I just kind of did it, folowing a discussion about the article at Editor_assistance/Requests (See Wikipedia:Editor_assistance/Requests#Spamming_Vandalism_Notice). User:GaryECampbell was not comfortable nominating it himself, saying "I'm just too green and wet behind the ears". I removed a speedy deletion tag, not feeling that it qualified, and brought it here for discussion. I don't know if I did the wrong thing by nominating it instead of GaryECampbell, it just seemed the best idea to me.--Beloved Freak 22:25, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

DO NOT DELETE - It is useful to compare features of software- If that is the case, then pages of all the category http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Software_comparisons

should be deleted. PS: I created this page am I am not affiliated to any company. I am just a simple user curious about the comparison. Diego Torquemada (talk) 00:56, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Can you prove the current things on the page isn't original research? That it is verifiable? Almost all reviews/comparisons are slanted one way or the other, and if you are not (which I don't know if you are or not) a expert on the subject, it wouldn't be close to neutral. I think either the page needs a restart by experts on the subject (note comment earlier) or delete.ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 23:00, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I see no evidence to the effect that a specific article is promoted, nor that the nominated article is created by a specific web conferencing vendor. Gary, perhaps you could share your reasons for believing so? Kind regards, Ryttaren (talk) 18:40, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~~:* Reply to Ryttaren - Thanks for asking. I will post facts this evening (busy weekend). - GaryECampbell (talk) 23:33, 5 July 2008 (UTC)~~[reply]

Comment Slanting can be the smallest things.ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 23:00, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Comparison of web conferencing software and PictureTalk have both been edited by 206.80.0.98 which may have introduced the perceived bias towards PictureTalk in Comparison of web conferencing software, but the articles were created by independent editors, months apart, and were edited by several others since creation. The comment on the first revision of Comparison of web conferencing software is "First page, please help me completing it" and it was created by Diegotorquemada who appears to have a long history editing here. Doesn't that initial revision comment explain why this comparison is mostly empty? Why not add more vendors if that's a problem? 207.34.229.126 (talk) 20:22, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"*Comment Does anyone know if there is another version of this page somewhere else?

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.