Talk:List of secure messengers

This article was nominated for deletion on 2 June 2014 (UTC). The result of the discussion was merge to Secure instant messaging.

This page should not be speedy deleted because...

This page should not be speedily deleted because... the list will be worked on within the next time and shoudl be kept for extension it is a list page as other list pages exist, not an article, for that is is called list page, it took hours to create the list and it is a research list to be present. --Oskar12345679 (talk) 20:41, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Messengers removed from the table.

The list of secure messengers has been abbreviated to the point of it not being a list but a minor selection. The previous table was more inclusive and informative. Since this article is about messengers, it should provide readers with as much information about diverse products as possible. Instead, the article is being used to dictate an editor's preferences. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Olivia.hobbes (talk • contribs) 17:57, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What was a removed was a long list of messengers without own article. Those red linked messengers were deemed not notable and can therefore be removed. As was said: conform WP:WTAF. The Banner talk 19:07, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The reason for removal is not sufficient. The information provided on Wikipedia does not require existence on Wikipedia. This complete removal of items from the table was justified by referring to a Wikipedia guideline that was applied with bias. Because the list does not contain questionable material, the application of this guideline again suggests personal preference. This type of removal depicts censorship as the table simply referred to messengers and their attributes. Please add the removed entries as they provide important information to the public. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Olivia.hobbes (talk • contribs) 20:46, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A red link is a red link. Nothing bias on that. When you want the info in the article, just write the article. The Banner talk 20:50, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please consider this. I list a city with a bunch of streets. Do I need to define a link to each of those streets? The purpose of the list is to introduce people to the existence of those streets. The purpose of the table is to introduce people to the existence of those messengers. It appears that you are promoting sustained projects because they have a footprint in Wikipedia while other projects are left without a presence, a voice. This is not acceptable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Olivia.hobbes (talk • contribs) 20:58, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

For a place on Wikipedia, a subject must be notable. The most easy way to show that notability is by having an article. So when you want those messengers in the article, write the articles first. Otherwise the verdict will automatically be that the messenger is not notable. The Banner talk 21:03, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It appears that your quest to purge Wikipedia of misinformation is incomplete. Please see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_link. (Without the final dot.) Clearly, RedLink GmbH is not defined yet it's listed. I'm concerned that a table of informative information is diluted. Your expectation of users to complete articles is questionable. I can initiate such a request with blank pages. Would that suffice? What sort of notability is enough? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Olivia.hobbes (talk • contribs) 21:18, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you have such a problem with this removal? You haven not edited anywhere else! The Banner talk 21:30, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A colleague referred me to this article. When I read it initially, the list was helpful. Now the table is a promotion of a handful of products. I found the original data informative because it displayed some products having unique attributes. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Olivia.hobbes (talk • contribs) 21:50, 3 July 2014 (UTC) I noticed that there are several links in the article that do not have Wikipedia entries, suggesting that the editor is silencing opposition by misusing Wikipedia guidelines. The table was shortened on the basis that it included references to products that do not exist on Wikipedia. Because this removal targeted a specific and very critical section of the article, while ignoring other sections, the article appears to be advising users on which messengers they should be informed of. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Olivia.hobbes (talk • contribs) 03:32, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You make it sound like you are having a business interest in one or more of the removed messengers. The Banner talk 12:44, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, absolutely. I have an interest in the availability of information. While my points have been directed to the questionable use of a guideline and to the questionable removal of valuable information, your points have been focused against me. I suggest that you direct your energies on progressing information, irregardless of your opinion on its perceived notability, instead of suppressing it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Olivia.hobbes (talk • contribs) 21:21, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]