Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/OpenSIPS

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 merge to SIP Express Router. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 21:54, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

OpenSIPS

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

Chiefly a list of indiscriminate items which has no value for the general people and only interests a group of hardcore fans. As such, the whole page is not encyclopedic. Codename Lisa (talk) 12:56, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! ^{Babymissfortune} 13:17, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:47, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: ~~Note: This cannot qualify for soft deletion as it has been prod/deproded. It can be closed as no consensus if no further comments after 7 more days.~~
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Killiondude (talk) 07:13, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I don't see any notability in the sourcing. Also, fwiw, PROD removal does not exempt an article from soft deletion via an AfD per the policy: administrators may soft delete at their discretion per WP:SOFTDELETE, even if it has been deproded. This discretion might be to not delete ~~this time because the deprod was so recent~~, but it would not be outside the policy to soft delete. Hopefully it won't come to that, though. Edit: actually, I think soft deletion would be good here if we don't have more participants. The actual contested PROD was in 2013, not recently, and a how-to guide is not really the type of sourcing we look for. Soft deletion (assuming we don't get more participation) would work because the deprod had been years ago, and a lack of a quorum now after multiple relists would show that over time, the deletion had become non-controversial. Anyway, that is assuming we don't get more comments, which like I said, hopefully we will. TonyBallioni (talk) 00:35, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Huh. I don't know where I got that idea in my mind. Thanks for the ping and letting me know. I was checking histories and not using soft deletion, ha. I appreciate it. Killiondude (talk) 05:11, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No, it makes sense to do it the way you were :). I’d agree that it typically would be a reason to NC close if it were recent, but policy allows a closing admin discretion in these cases. I think an example of where I would soft delete would be a no reference stub from 2005 that was de-proded in 2006 by an IP with no comment and had been relisted twice with no comments: it would be ineligible for PROD because of the 2006 contesting, but if no one in the community objected to its deletion after 3 weeks, it’d make little sense to NC and renom. This isn’t quite at that extreme, but relisted twice with one Delete !vote based on the sourcing and a contested PROD from 5 years ago would in my opinion, be fine to soft delete. Again, hopefully this becomes all academic, but I just didn’t want there to be a NC if there didn’t have to be. TonyBallioni (talk) 14:07, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging JamesBWatson (talk · contribs), who added the first prod.
Pinging Mark viking (talk · contribs), who wrote on the talk page:
I am going to deprod this article as the second reference, Building Telephony Systems with OpenSIPS 1.6 is an entire book on the subject--a substantial peer reviewed publication by a respected computer book publisher. This is good evidence of notability. A quick look at GScholar shows a number of papers discussing openSIPs. Thus the assertion of lack of notability is not uncontroversial. --Mark viking (talk) 23:03, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
Pinging Pavlor (talk · contribs), who removed the second prod on 1 January 2018 with the note "Procedural deprod - Prod/Deprod already in August 2013, deprod reason on the article talkpage".
Cunard (talk) 06:07, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Book mentioned above was published by Packt, which is a print on demand publishing company - they will probably publish anything you throw at them. Hard to judge notability then. I was not able to find better sources myself. Pavlor (talk) 10:36, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to SIP Express Router. There are few enough editors in the telecoms space these days that lack of participation does not imply lack of controversy. Warnock's dilemma applies. 4 1/2 years after my deprod above, Packt's reputation isn't what it used to be. The book itself got a second edition in 2016, which wouldn't happen if it was hit-and-run dross. But Pavlor makes a good point--Packt branding doesn't have the reputation of a first-tier publisher. OpenSIPs itself has a yearly conference devoted to it and is mentioned in about 450 GScholar entries. This paper claims (as of 2011) that OpenSIPS was the most popular open source SIP server. Altogether its not enough evidence for stand-alone notability. But the software is worth a mention in the SIP Express Router article. This article covers SER, and further developments OpenSER and Kamailio. OpenSIPS is another further development of OpenSER, so has a natural place in the article. I'd just merge the couple of sentences in the lede of this article as due weight. --Mark viking (talk)

"Lack of controversy?" With all due respect, what are you talking about? The huge table that consistitutes 96.7% of the article (45,052 bytes from the 46,542 bytes total) is a direct violation of WP:NOTDIR, a fundamental policy.

The remaining 3.7% probably does better in Session Initiation Protocol article.

Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 19:49, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'd strongly prefer deletion (this is clearly not notable and there is nothing I can see worth merging), but I'd be fine with a redirect and let people merge as needed from history (and I suspect nothing will be needed, but that's up for a talk page discussion). TonyBallioni (talk) 20:14, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for not being more clear about the controversy assertion. I was referring to TonyBallioni's assertion above that lack of participation could mean less controversy. Regarding the table, there's no controversy there--it's of undue weight, out of place, and agreed, violates NOTDIR. Whatever is done with the article, the table has got to go :-) Redirecting or merging to Session Initiation Protocol would be fine by me, too. --Mark viking (talk) 20:56, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge lede sentences to

Session Initiation Protocol per above discussion. FloridaArmy (talk) 22:25, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. What I wrote in my PROD back in 2013 still applies now: there is no evidence that this subject satisfies Wikipedia's notability guidelines. The article gives no independent sources at all (the author of the book referred to is one of the developers of OpenSIPS). Merging the bulk of the content of the article makes no sense, since, as Codename Lisa and Mark viking both say, almost all of it is a totally unsuitable table which does not belong in any article. As for merging the first couple of sentences to SIP Express Router, I agree with TonyBallioni that there is nothing worth merging. However, anyone who thinks that OpenSIPS is worth a brief mention there can easily write one or two short sentences telling the reader what OpenSIPS is, without having to refer to this article. AfDs that are closed as "merge" more often than not result in one of two outcomes: (1) nobody actually does the merge, or (2) it is merged, and then after a while when everyone from the AfD has moved on, someone reverts the redirecting, and restores the article. In either of these cases there was consensus (sometimes unanimous consensus) that the article should not remain, but it does remain. Obviously in the case of an article with significant content worth merging that is just a risk we have to accept, but where there is no significant content to merge, as in this case, it is much better to delete the article and, as I have indicated, anyone can then add a brief mention to the other article if they wish to. That is why I strongly prefer delete to merge for this article. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 17:05, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not notable, WP is not a tech manual or directory listing ^{Atsme📞📧} 10:15, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Selective merge to SIP Express Router. According to the OpenSIPS github page, OpenSIPS is a fork of SER. It might make sense to mention the fork there. But, for sure, don't include the whole list of modules. One or two sentences should be sufficient, -- RoySmith (talk) 16:15, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - a Google search indicates there is a strong technical support infrastructure behind this implementation. The organization also holds annual conferences to support the product. Better sourcing would be nice, but this is a back office product, and not sexy. A merge wouldn't work because the SIP article only points to a list of different vendor implementations, and SIP Express Router is a fork. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 20:22, 23 January 2018 (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.