Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anystream


 * 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. Krakatoa Katie  08:41, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Anystream

 * Delete: WP:VSCA. No reliable sources given for verification. —Wknight94 (talk) 02:42, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep: A lack of reliable sources seems like it would require  rather than deletion.  VSCA is an essay, not a guideline.  ju66l3r 03:15, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
 * PS - I added a reliable source for the Apreso software since nomination. ju66l3r 03:18, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment: Lack of reliable sources indicates lack of verifiability - and that indicates deletion may be in order. Read the first paragraph of WP:V.  If reliable sources can be found, I'll be happy to end this early.  —Wknight94 (talk) 03:19, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
 * BTW, that reference is for the software, not the company. Maybe the article should be for the program. —Wknight94 (talk) 03:21, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I hope that the newest reference I just added satisfies your request for a reference that gives this company verifiability (including a more explicit declaration of notability as the 2004 Market Leadership Award winner from Frost & Sullivan). It's from a 3rd-party news source on tech companies.  The two references should satisfy WP:RS and WP:V making the grounds of this AfD somewhat moot.  ju66l3r 16:23, 23 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep Per ju66l3r, lack of sources is not a reason for deletion, lack of verifiability is. Michael Billington (talk • contribs) 12:08, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete, verifiability is not a keep criterion. Provide those reliable sources.  User:Zoe|(talk) 17:29, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Maybe it wasn't clear because I added my response inline instead of at the end of the AfD section: I have added 2 sources (1 from an online tech news source denoting the company's notability as a market leader for its field, 1 from a city newspaper article denoting the company's latest software package being used in academic settings).  I did not create this article, but saw the AfD and felt that this company was notable enough to stand as verifiably notable and the article could be reliably sourced (as it is at this time).  ju66l3r 18:19, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
 * How about Astute Technology? That was deleted with db-spam a couple times before the author basically used Anystream as a template to re-write Astute Technology.  What is the difference between the two?  —Wknight94 (talk) 18:50, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I have addressed the AfD nomination of Astute Tech on its own AfD page. The difference as it relates to Anystream is that Anystream has reliable sources (that have been added since your nomination) for its technolgy and company's notability and Astute Tech does not (that I can find).  Each article should keep or delete on its own merits (given no proof or evidence that they are a series of articles or anything like that).  ju66l3r 19:10, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Sounds good. Thanks.  —Wknight94 (talk) 19:48, 23 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep —  The references added are good enough for me. Google spits out about 80k. I say keep. JoeSmack Talk (p-review!) 21:30, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment - I'm leaning towards keep because of the first source, but when I click on the second source it says "the article that you requested is no longer available." - Lex 20:02, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep Notable enough. Macworld did a big write-up of them.  --Marriedtofilm 03:19, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Oh, that's nice. That should be added to the article somewhere.  —Wknight94 (talk) 03:40, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
 * This AfD is to discuss if the company is worthy of an article, not to knock the editors for not placing a certain reference in it. --Marriedtofilm 03:48, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Huh? I'm saying someone should add that reference to the article somewhere.  How is that knocking anyone?  —Wknight94 (talk) 04:23, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
 * The "oh, that's nice" came accross as a little flippant to the article editor who didn't use that Macworld reference. --Marriedtofilm 04:34, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
 * No, that was meant as "that's the best reference yet". —Wknight94 (talk) 04:57, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
 * My apologies, then. --Marriedtofilm 06:02, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
 * 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.