- 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 - Yomanganitalk 10:23, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Non notable company, fails WP:CORP. The award received (one of the 100 best VoIP providers) is not very discerning, the best 100 is quite a large group. Callcentric Accatel (the mother company) gives only 19 distinct Google hits[1] (without the mother company, you come across other unrelated companies with the same name, like a Swiss one). Fram 06:12, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Response from: Jdobish 07:09, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm a little baffled by the logic of searching for combination of Accatel and Callcentric; what does that prove except that the 2 words may not be used often together. When searching for "callcentric.com" excluding their own ___domain there are around 1,190 hits.
- Wikipedia's guidline: WP:CORP mentions under "Criteria for companies and corporations":
- Section 1: "This criterion includes published works in all forms" - an example of this might be (if I am interpreting this correctly) the comments written here: http://www.dslreports.com/nsearch?boardlist=168&cat=remark&advanced=1&168=1&p=10&o=r&q=callcentric
- Section 2: "The company or corporation is listed on ranking indices of important companies produced by well-known and independent publications" - While mentioning specifically Fortune 500, I assume Google Page Rank and Alexa ratings would be a quantifier. Google pagerank for http://www.callcentric.com/ is 5, and current Alexa statistics can be seen here: http://www.alexa.com/data/details/traffic_details?url=www.callcentric.com of note are the 3 month change and 1 week average.
- Compared to some of the other companies listed here (which is the same category as Callcentric): List of commercial voice over IP network providers it would seem I have written this article in more detail, clarity, and neutrality than the others. Callcentric from what I can tell is more "notable" than some of the other companies/articles listed at that link. No offense taken, but disconcerting that this is my first article and I actually spent time reading the Wikipedia policies, suggestions, etc; and the end result seems to be deletion. Jdobish 07:09, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply: as I noted at the talk page, I appreciate your efforts and hope you don't get discouraged, but: the dslreports link you give is trivial coverage (forum posts, not journalistic articles); an Alexa ranking of more than 100,000 is not very impressive (I don't know what a Google pagerank is); and the fact that there may be other articles worthy of deleteion which are not deleted yet is no indication that this article should be kept either, only that those other articles should be up for deletion as well (and they maywell be, once some editor notices them). I have noticed this article since it was a new one, not because it is somehow worse than all those others. Fram 08:33, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- No, the second criterion is not inclusive of Google PageRank and Alexa. Those aren't akin to the Fortune 500 and Forbes 500 in any way. For starters, and in many ways this isn't even the most significant difference, what they rank are not companies. Uncle G 11:55, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm a little baffled by the logic of searching for combination of Accatel and Callcentric; what does that prove except that the 2 words may not be used often together. When searching for "callcentric.com" excluding their own ___domain there are around 1,190 hits.
- Delete Clearly the links above don't meet WP:CORP. A ranking index referes to stock market indices, e.g. DJIA, not website rankings. ~ trialsanderrors 07:26, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I Surrender! It seems like I cannot prove this case. Jdobish 08:40, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - This looks like an advertisement for a small company, not an encyclopedia article on a notable company. The comparison to other VoIP providers made this appear obvious. George J. Bendo 09:52, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- 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.