Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Image streaming


 * 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. JohnCD (talk) 10:28, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Image streaming

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Psychbabble with insufficient sources available to establish notability. The article on its proponent has already been deleted (Articles for deletion/Win Wenger), and this article should go as well -- the only source here is a blog. This is the sort of thing that sometimes gives wikipedia a bad name... Nomoskedasticity (talk) 12:38, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Weak keep Seems to get a lot of Ghits, and I found two articles on Google news, and a pay to view article. Most likely pseudoscience, but seems to have some popularity. Angryapathy (talk) 14:16, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

This is a good unbiased overview of image streaming no way should it be deleted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.67.92.180 (talk) 19:26, 19 November 2009 (UTC)  Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 01:38, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,   A rbitrarily 0    ( talk ) 00:54, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.


 * Delete Mentions are trivial and not significant coverage; they do not describe the technique in any sort of detail. Fails WP:N. Ray  Talk 01:40, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete While the technique is described, there are no verifiable sources of repute to back said description, and scouring EBSCOhost yielded absolutely nothing under the search term "image streaming", which leads me to conclude it is pure garbage (as far as academically grounded notability goes (pretty far)). Why can't we simply remain silent when inanimate objects start talking to us?—The perennial problem of staying up too late.—αrgumziω ϝ 03:37, 1 December 2009 (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.