Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Voicemail to text
- 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 of the discussion was delete. Jaranda wat's sup 21:05, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Non notable product and/or service (600 odd ghits) that seems to serve as a magnet for spam links. Purge for being non-notable spam/advertising. Megapixie 08:12, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I believe this article attempts to explore history of voicemail-specific speech-to-text service providers. If advertising is indeed kept to a minimum of only a chronological order of provider offering, this should continue to grow into an informative overview of this emerging application. Rygelski 09:27, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
- Do you, by any chance have any association with the company concerned ? Megapixie 08:36, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I use the service, does that not make me simply a valuable contributor? Any agenda I have would be educational, not commercial or promotional. Does Wikipedia not support articles on technological advancement if organizated in a fair and balanced method? Rygelski 08:41 UTC
- Not if you're the guy whose contact details are at the bottom of this - http://www.prwebdirect.com/releases/2005/11/prweb304961.htm Megapixie 08:44, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If you'll notice, I also added many other details to competitor's services for better organization and additional non-biased information (as well as revisions to unrelated articles in Wikipedia). If I was trying to post self-promoting material, wouldn't I better hide my identity and focus on my own few documents instead of contributing as fairly to articles that would contradict my own "self-promotion"? Am I under review or is the educational quality of the article? Rygelski 08:51, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Please do not remove votes from the AfD discussion - that can be considered vandalism. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 09:18, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]- Comment Opps. Pure accident. I got an edit conflict and resolved it badly. Sorry. Megapixie 23:30, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Whoops, didn't review the history. It's all right. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 04:49, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Opps. Pure accident. I got an edit conflict and resolved it badly. Sorry. Megapixie 23:30, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Advertisment. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 08:34, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per Coredesat. --DaveG12345 10:38, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as advertisement. Tychocat 10:53, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as advertisement. --Emc² (CONTACT ME) 14:49, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as advertisement. -- Alias Flood 17:53, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as advertisement and WP:WEB DavidHumphreys SPEAK TO MEABOUT THE THINGS I MESSED UP20:08, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete it already, I didn't create it. 24.217.127.128 23:21, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep and Rewrite. Seems to be a generic name for a type of technology/service rather than the name of a specific company/product. "Voicemail to text" gets 18500 ghits. Article should be made encyclopedic...emphasizing what the technology is instead of companies that provide it or first provided it. Include a link to speech recognition. An article that attracts spam/ads should be edited, not deleted. Flying Jazz 00:37, 8 July 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.