Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Software broadcasting


 * 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. ansh 666 07:45, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

Software broadcasting

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Not a notable term. The only reference is both promotional, and doesn't use the term. Google search results are for Live streaming software. power~enwiki ( π, ν ) 02:21, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. L3X1  (distænt write)  03:05, 11 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Merge with and redirect to Software as a service; and make a copy to Wiktionary. WP:NOTNOTABLE for Wikipedia. --Ne0 (talk) 08:14, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
 * This is very strange three-stages instructions for the closer actually –Ammarpad (talk) 13:44, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. L3X1  (distænt write)  17:31, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Merge/redirect or delete?
 * Delete and oppose any merge/redirect, as this is original research and there are no references to support this definition. There is no such thing as "software broadcasting" in Software as a service. The article claims Software broadcasting is a way of delivering business software so that it can be accessed from anywhere, and on a subscription basis. This claim doesn't have any sources to support and verify it. The only case in which I have seen the words software and broadcasting used side by side (but not as a compound term) is in the content of discussing broadcasting (streaming) through software instead of tradition hardware based broadcasting.--DreamLinker (talk) 07:22, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein   09:08, 18 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete because it is not notable term. No reliable sources coverage of the concept. I am against merging because we shouldn't merge what is not reported by independent sources and thus fails our basic inclusion criterion which requires such. Its only source is the promotional corp where it comes from. The present lone source in the article doesn't even justify the content. Ammarpad (talk) 13:44, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete I agree entirely with Ammarpad.--greenrd (talk) 07:27, 23 December 2017 (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.