Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Domain dialing

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. — Cirt (talk) 05:16, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Domain dialing

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Promotional material thinly disguised as an encyclopedia article. "Domain dialling" seems to be offered by only one company which is the ultimate source of all the references in the article and most of the hits on Google. Fails WP:RS, WP:SPAM and WP:N andy (talk) 22:36, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As I've written in the page discussion, the article has many references from different sources, according to Wikipedia:Citing sources, Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources. Then it's not a spam, because has several different and reliable sites as sources. Domain dialling was also a relevant subject on the ICANN 41 as the article shows. Andyjsmith (talk · contribs)'s argument is that the article refers to the company Siter.com, but the article is wider and chooses to talk about the technology ___domain dialing, not only on a company's service. This Wikipedia has many useless pages about biography of people who has a blog but with no encyclopedic relevance and now they want to delete a matter about technological advances on calling process and URLs. Very strange. NandO ^{ta_lk^!} 22:44, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is exactly what I mean about sources. The ICANN reference is based on a press release by Siter, from which it is clear that ___domain dialling was not on the agenda but simply that Siter hawked the idea around. In fact every reference that is currently cited in the article is taken directly from Siter press releases. No other companies are mentioned and no independent sources are provided. The article is blatantly spam. andy (talk) 07:09, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- You're very wrong. You're saying that Portal Terra Tecnologia is not a independent site apart from Siter... Poor boy. NandO ^{ta_lk^!} 09:29, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And "___domain dialing" is even at Merriam-Webster Online dictionary. NandO ^{ta_lk^!} 03:35, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:43, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per andy's comment above. Not enough reliable, third-party sources to establish notability. (And no, Merriam-Webster's "new words and slang" section is not a reliable source, it falls under WP:SPS) - SudoGhost ™ 04:03, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this is an emerging technology. Emergeing technoloigie typicaly don't have a lot of "referances" on the internet other than the opines that are working to devlop them. I think this just needs more information and sources on how the process actually retrieves a phone number from a FQDN. Is it a special DNS record, a special meta tag on the website, or a special webpage in the ___domain? Charles E. Keisler (talk), A+ Network+ and Security+ Certified 16:59, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please address the issues: WP:RS, WP:SPAM and WP:N. In particular, where are the reliable sources and why is this notable under wikipedia guidelines? andy (talk) 22:51, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is an encyclopedia, not a directory of all things. If emerging technologies don't have references showing the notability of the subject, they aren't notable enough for Wikipedia. That's not to say that this will not be an article at a later point, but for the moment, it should not be. - SudoGhost ™ 22:58, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It can not have a notable reference in English but as I've cited, it has in Portuguese: 1. And this kind of technology is also disponible in English so it's relevant in this Wikipedia. The three principles cited by andy (WP:RS, WP:SPAM and WP:N) are not enough to judge this case because it's a reliable reference. NandO ^{ta_lk^!} 06:07, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep emerging technology, so thats the reason for little references. I say Keep. for future evaluation.--BabbaQ (talk) 17:24, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Emerging technologies" have no place on Wikipedia if notability cannot be established. Articles deleted can be recreated, so there's no need to keep "for future evaluation". - SudoGhost ™ 19:32, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: it's probable that the author of the article ... has a massive and undisclosed COI. ... andy (talk) 20:43, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: The above comment has had content redacted, replaced with ellipsis (...), per WP:OUTING. --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 20:54, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Reluctant delete because it seems interesting, useful, and likely that it will very rapidly become notable, but sadly does not seem to be at the moment. I've looked and failed to find any coverage of the subject which would make it meet the GNG. ╟─Treasury Tag►directorate─╢ 21:31, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:13, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisting comment. I was about to punch this "delete" because at this point the arguments for deletion are slightly stronger but before it's closed it would be helpful if someone who reads Portuguese could do a quick google news search. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:16, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I've read the english sources, and it appears that "___domain dialing" is not a technology, but rather a product. If it were an emerging technology that several firms were implementing, I'd go for Keep. But it looks like only a single company siter.com produces such product, which utilizes a large database that maps URLs (and ___location) to a phone number (possibly localized). --Noleander (talk) 00:57, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - WP:CRYSTAL] doesn't allow us to keep articles that "will be notable". Hasteur (talk) 21:03, 12 July 2011 (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.