- 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. SorryGuy Talk 19:41, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- DreamStream (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)
Article on a start-up with no independent sources; ad-like but not blatant spam. Surely fails WP:CORP - note that its first product launch is coming next month. Also note that this article has been deleted under CSD G11 twice. Mangojuicetalk 23:05, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. No assertion of notability. Google news turns up nothing but a different product with the same name. —BradV 00:08, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete no sort of external coverage. -Drdisque (talk) 00:56, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 14:15, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Concerning notability, Wikipedia states: "... smaller organizations can be notable, just as individuals can be notable, and arbitrary standards should not be used to create a bias favoring larger organizations." Thus, it does not fail WP:CORP. Furthermore, within the encryption industry, DreamStream's technology is both unprecedented and unparalleled, which, from a journalistic standpoint, makes this entry valuable. Johndiff (talk) 17:32, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, smaller organizations can be notable. That doesn't mean they are. To pass WP:CORP, we need "coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources." —BradV 17:38, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- "Unprecedented and unparalleled" is kind of a hard claim to back up when DreamStream doesn't even describe their technology. So I think that claim is quite dubious and needs to be backed up with a reliable, independent source. Mangojuicetalk 21:49, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, smaller organizations can be notable. That doesn't mean they are. To pass WP:CORP, we need "coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources." —BradV 17:38, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Unreliable sources, basically just advertising. Fattyjwoods (Push my button) 02:21, 3 April 2008 (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.