Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/SambaStream


 * 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. Cirt (talk) 18:06, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

SambaStream

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

no indication that the company meets WP:ORG noq (talk) 01:22, 6 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Following was posted to my talk page noq (talk) 10:53, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

I understand your concerns around the SambaStream page, however I'd like to point out that the reference article is in a prominent trade  journal for its industry Information_Today,_Inc., and while its not a web resource,  it is in print. In addition, I've found several other pages in the same category Project Management Software which appear to have even less  than this: WizeHive,  Schedule24,  Scrumpad  to name a few. If they meet the minimum criteria then SambaStream should as well. Please let me know if you have any other concerns. Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dgildeh (talk • contribs) 02:05, 6 February 2010 (UTC)


 * WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a valid argument. The article needs to show WP:Notability using WP:Verifiable, WP:Reliable sources. There does not appear to be significant online coverage and the online site of the magazine you reference does not even include Sambastream in its index. I will try to look in the print edition when I am back in the office next week but I think this on its own is unlikely to establish notability. noq (talk) 11:01, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I looked at the page, and Sambastream is listed, but at this point I cannot see the article online. As you said, though, this in itself doesn't establish notability.  Joshua Scott (talk) 19:17, 6 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:22, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:23, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete, article masquerading as spam. Cannot see how this is notable. Haakon (talk) 16:10, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete, NY Times has nothing, gbook search has nothing, yahoo & google news show nothing, and The creator's username matches this, which appears to be a Conflict of Interest. There is the one mention in Information Today, but I'm not familiar with that site to know if it is reliable.  Still, to satisfy the general notability guideline, we would need to see significant coverage, which in my mind means a minimum of two reliable sources.  The second link the article provides is to a paid endorsement, and I know that doesn't qualify as being reliable. Joshua Scott (talk) 19:17, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete per nomination. More of the "project management" morass.  Referenced only to publications of limited circulation and interest. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 23:35, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Weak delete. Only one WP:RS article about it. Virtually no other coverage. Pcap  ping  07:23, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Accepted. Thanks for this, has been a valuable learning experiance on how Wikipedia operates with my first foray into this. I can accept the arguments and hope that we can provide more notable references for you all next time. My intentions are not to spam wikipedia, just provide a stub page for SambaStream, which is why I deliberately left it short and sweet. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.84.248.99 (talk) 10:53, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment Information Today is highly respected as a publisher in information science and library and information science. Jodi.a.schneider (talk) 18:17, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Weak keepas for the source, I consider its reviews and news independent and even authoritative in the field. I would be extremely surprised if it is a paid endorsement, and I challenge Joshua --who admits he knows nothing about the publication--to support or retract his assumption, which comes pretty close to libel.   But how substantial is the article?  If it is, the product is notable. Contrary to what was said above, there is no nothing wrong with specialized sources   for specialised subjects--in fact, that's what we mostly look for.  DGG ( talk ) 18:47, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
 * It's one page based on the toc. Pcap ping  19:23, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
 * that particular magazine has tabloid paper, 11 inch by 17.  DGG ( talk ) 20:47, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Similar stories in the magazine run to about 850 words. noq (talk) 21:05, 8 February 2010 (UTC)


 * DGG, Let me make myself more clear, I wasn't trying to bash Information Today, which is reliable, as was pointed out, I was speaking of the second link as being a paid endorsement, and it is just an advertisement for a seminar, including a link to sign up for the conference. This seminar happens to have SambaStream as a vendor, and SambaStream's logo is their only mention in that source.  We are still not meeting WP:GNG which calls for multiple sources in most cases.  Joshua Scott (talk) 03:47, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep Main products seems to have been launched late 2009, some in-depth mention in Information Today a few months later is at least indicative of notability, so let it rest for a while. WP is WP:NOTBUREAUCRACY and there is also encyclopedic value in providing timely information, and the WP:N guideline is not law.   Smerdis is running a personal vendetta against More of the "project management" morass. - there is no broad support for this view, and, eh, it's not project management but "content management" - even that I'm no sawy in this field, I'm pretty sure that these two things are entirely different.  Despite the eyesore "on top of its multi-tenented architecture", it's not too spammy either, can be fixed easily. Power.corrupts (talk) 16:47, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete Company launched one product and received one good article. A case of "one event", except that the guideline was written for bios. I think it should be applied here as well. gidonb (talk) 13:22, 14 February 2010 (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.