Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/SMS gateway

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 - Keep - Peripitus (Talk) 10:03, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

SMS gateway[edit]

This article consists of some dubious facts, bad references and outright rubbish, couple with a how-to guide and hundreds of external links, mostly spam, with a title that could refer to any one of a dozen different things. I don't think there is anything worth salvaging. akaDruid (talk) 13:58, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This is a valid topic and valuable information. I agree it probably needs more cites, but let's not throw the baby out with the bathwater. Numerous hits, and even plenty of hits on Google News. Frank | talk 14:16, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I don't doubt that the term is used a lot; The problem is that there is no consensus on what it actually means. And as far as the valuable information goes; A lot of the technical stuff seems to be inaccurate, and inconsistent with the SMS article. The history section is apparently just wrong - as far as I can tell the "famous crashing of Orange on Christmas Day 2000" never actually happened. akaDruid (talk) 11:31, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete: I think the author of that article wanted to convert that page into a spam link farm! Also, not enough context to identify subject. Alexius08 is welcome to talk about his contributions. 16:19, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge SMS gateway should be merged to SMS. --Firefly322 (talk) 22:12, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Frank, but trim excess links. Stifle (talk) 18:49, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There was no dubious information when I created the article a couple of years ago. It's true that it's unfortunately somewhat of a magnet for spam by commercial services that provide some sort of SMS gateway, and I eventually got too busy to continue actively maintaining the article and removing spam links (although others have periodically done that since the time that I mostly stopped). I know of no other actively maintained list of SMS gateways on the Internet, and this is often very useful information to have (yes, I know that Wikipedia is not meant to be a link repository, but in older revisions, the list of links took up little space compared to the textual content part of the article). Perhaps if we removed some of the inappropriate content (this old revision might be a good base), and removed all links except for those to first-party cellular carriers' (which is all I originally intended to be listed in the article), you could consider keeping it...? --Dan Harkless (talk) 02:14, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep apparently this page is not up to desired standards, but I found some very useful info that was hard to find elsewhere. Once I found it here, though, I was able to verify it (e.g. gateway codes for SMS-email etc) on various other sites, so the info is either accurate or a widely propagated misunderstanding. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.126.103.51 (talk) 03:13, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I wouldn't rank it among the best articles, but its quite useful and certainly doesn't violate any policy. — xDanielx ^T/_C\^R 03:21, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - it has useful info on sms / email providers.

24.69.160.235 (talk) 15:53, 15 May 2008(UTC)Joel

Keep - An SMS gateway, for those that don't know, is something that relays messages to the text messaging system from something else, usually email but the article also covers systems that read the message into regular voice lines. The consumer generally does not have wholesale access to the SMS network from their PC, hence the need for a gateway. I'd also like to point out that most of the external links are not "spam" but are email addresses belonging to various cellular providers. Squidfryerchef (talk) 05:01, 17 May 2008 (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.