Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dilithium Networks
- 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) 00:22, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Dilithium Networks (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log) • Afd statistics
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Delete. Non-notable company. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 18:41, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. "Just not notable" is not a very helpful nomination statement. Could the nominator please explain how the independent sources in the article are insufficient for notability? Phil Bridger (talk) 19:23, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:CORP insists on more than simply having sources as a means of establishing notability. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 21:33, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- No it doesn't, as long as the sources are independent and reliable and have significant coverage: "A company, corporation, organization, school, team, religion, group, product, or service is notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in secondary sources. Such sources must be reliable, and independent of the subject". Please explain how the sources in the article fail to meet this criterion. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:56, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Taking away all the dodgy sources such as blogs, forums, home pages and sources from the company itself leaves very little "significant coverage". -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 04:39, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- No it doesn't, as long as the sources are independent and reliable and have significant coverage: "A company, corporation, organization, school, team, religion, group, product, or service is notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in secondary sources. Such sources must be reliable, and independent of the subject". Please explain how the sources in the article fail to meet this criterion. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:56, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:CORP insists on more than simply having sources as a means of establishing notability. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 21:33, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions.
- Delete. This text is unambiguous advertising and should be deleted, indeed speedily deleted, no matter how notable this apparently failed and bought-out business might be:
- ....provides mobile video solutions that enable delivery of multimedia services over mobile and broadband networks to any device including mobile phones, smart phones, settop boxes and PCs. Its video technologies are deployed by network operators, content owners, aggregators and equipment providers. Today, the majority of Dilithium’s solutions are IP based, so they can run on a large number of networks.
- ...provides a multimedia solution for cellular, IP, and PSTN convergence as networks evolve towards the IP Multimedia Subsystem (IMS).
- is compatible with all major voice and video standards used in 3G mobile and IP networks and provide a SIP-based environment enabling access to hosted applications from any SIP device
- As usual, much of this text resists editing by strategic meaninglessness. And at any rate, it isn't notable: the references are all to its own sources or to announcements of minor trade awards and the like. I found nothing better. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 15:36, 2 November 2010 (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.