Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/VIPole

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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:07, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

VIPole[edit]

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

This entry clearly fails WP:NOTADVERTISING and the claims of 500k downloads are unsubstantiated by the link (Installations Entre 100 000 et 500 000) Domdeparis (talk) 15:49, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This is not an advertising article about a company, it just presents a few facts about a free encrypted messenger that offers the same features as Telegram and Skype, and some specials. As far as downloads are concerned - I agree and I have corrected it. (talk) 9:43, 9 November 2016 (UTC) — Wmattjackson16 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Hi Wmattjackson16 as you have only edited on this one subject and the facts that you put forward do not explain why this company's product is notable one may wonder if you have something to do with the company itself in some way. If this is the case you must read WP:COI guidelines. --Domdeparis (talk) 09:52, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Domdeparis The product is notable as it is an encrypted messenger, like Signal and Wickr, but with free encrypted videochats. I’ve tried several products of this kind. My acquaintances use it, but there’s no info about it in Wikipedia - that’s is why I added it. It’s a safer alternative to many popular messaging options. 11:15, 9 November 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wmattjackson16 (talk • contribs) — Wmattjackson16 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Hi Wmattjackson16 what you say is interesting but that would amount to Original research and just because other pages exist is not a reason for including this one. You haven't answered my question about WP:COI and any links you have with this company. What are the justifications for you creating this page? there is a perfectly good web site that explains the product and anyone looking for a product of this kind will find it. Wikipedia is not a promotional tool and I cannot see how this product is notable. it has had no coverage in the media that explains why this product is the bee's knees so to speak --Domdeparis (talk) 13:36, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Domdeparis Does something really need to be the bee’s knees to be mentioned in an encyclopedia? Encyclopedia provides knowledge about what exists in the world and brings value for people. And the thing I’ve written about has practical utility for at least 100,000 people. I agree that media coverage is poor, but it’s enough to give a general idea about VIPole, if googled, for example: http://www.securitybuyer.com/2016/08/09/vipole-secure-messenger-users-increase-due-recent-privacy-concerns-rival-apps/ I’ve tried several encrypted messengers including Signal, Wickr, Telegram and others, as I’m interested in this topic. I checked the list of secure messengers in Wkipedia, and to my mind it’s incomplete. This is why I took the time to create a small article about a product that is less known, but might be helpful for the people who care about their privacy. Actually, I think that I’ve provided enough information to prove that I’m speaking about something that exists and has value for people. I would like to close the discussion about deleting the page. 15:57, 9 November 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wmattjackson16 (talk • contribs) — Wmattjackson16 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Wmattjackson16 Please read WP:GNG and WP:NOTDIR and you will understand why the article IMHO does not have it's place here. Wikipedia is not a directory of all solutions that exist, to be included a subject has to have significant coverage from reliable secondary sources and your product does not have this. It is not because something exists and is useful that it has its place here. And BTW you know as well as I do that the number of downloads has absolutely nothing to do with the number of users, I have downloaded dozens of applications that I have tested and then deleted and click farms do exist by the way. VIPOLE has less than 4k reviews. Once again you are avoiding replying to the question are you linked in any way to the company? If you are really passionate about the subject and have no links to VIPOLE maybe you should create an article for Hoccer that has 1M downloads? or CoverMe that has over 500k downloads? Domdeparis (talk) 16:20, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Domdeparis Thank you for your advice about Hoccer - an interesting app that pitches itself as a secure WhatsApp alternative. I haven’t heard about it before - probably because of the lack of information about it. If there was an article in Wikipedia about it - I could have known about it. There is an article in German, but I don’t speak German. I’d like to create an article about it, but I’m not sure you will approve it. When there are few choices, the diversity of tastes is limited, this is what I think about the issue. I thought Wikipedia supports the freedom of choice and impartiality, but now I see I was mistaken. 14:30, 10 November 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wmattjackson16 (talk • contribs) — Wmattjackson16 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Delete NN promotional guff. --Tagishsimon (talk) 16:33, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
del no independent sources. Staszek Lem (talk) 17:39, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete Purely promotional, quite obviously COI-rooted, no good sourcing. --FuzzyGopher (talk) 18:17, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete COI spam of a non-notable product. Joseph2302 18:41, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Pure promotion, absurdly weak sources (mostly self-sourced). - Brianhe (talk) 20:39, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Joseph2302 20:47, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Joseph2302 20:47, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Joseph2302 20:47, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Poorly written commercial blurb. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:49, 14 November 2016 (UTC).[reply]
SNOW Delete as for both not having any actual notability or significance and these two are sufficient enough for deletion. SwisterTwister talk 06:56, 15 November 2016 (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.