- 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. -- RoySmith (talk) 01:32, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
- Single-stream technology ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
The article is by a WP:SPA who mostly uses as refs links to where you can buy the various products of "eyeson". Seems like pure spam, really. Dicklyon ( talk) 18:35, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
- Delete A search shows that there are a lot of things possessing the attribute of "single-stream technology", but I was not able to locate any in-depth, independent, reliable sources (per WP:RS) on this particular technology. Without such sources, this videoconferencing topic fails notability WP:GNG and verifiability WP:V. The article itself is largely promotional of the eyeson product that uses it, to the point the article could be considered a WP:COATRACK for eyeson. I don't see any good redirect target, either. Hence, delete. -- Mark viking ( talk) 21:15, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 00:10, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
- Isn't the patent EP2498491
[1] a reliable source (per
WP:RS) on this particular technology? Don't we accept the
European Patent Office as an independent and reliable institution? --
Otto Nickl ([User talk:Otto Nickl|talk]]) 07:11, 16 August 2017 (CET)
- Patents are reliable sources for some info, but aren't very useful at establishing notability, or terminology; they're pretty nearly like self-published papers.
Dicklyon (
talk)
05:27, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
- I have add a reference to an independent article from Gartner Inc. and deleted all links to eyeson. -- Otto Nickl ( talk) 23:20, 22 October 2017 (CET)
- Patents are reliable sources for some info, but aren't very useful at establishing notability, or terminology; they're pretty nearly like self-published papers.
Dicklyon (
talk)
05:27, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
- Isn't the patent EP2498491
[1] a reliable source (per
WP:RS) on this particular technology? Don't we accept the
European Patent Office as an independent and reliable institution? --
Otto Nickl ([User talk:Otto Nickl|talk]]) 07:11, 16 August 2017 (CET)
References
- ^ Patent EP2498491 A1 Verfahren und Vorrichtung zur audio- und videobasierten Echtzeit-Kommunikation, September 12th, 2012, EUROPEAN PATENT, Retrieved Oct 16, 2017
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 18:16, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 18:16, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Night fury 12:32, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Night fury 12:32, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
- I'm not the most tech savvy person, and probably not enough so to do it myself competently, but probably merge and redirect to Multipoint control unit, in the hope that the coverage of the broader subject can actually be turned into something resembling an encyclopedia article. If all the unsourced content currently in this article is removed (in addition to the content that would basically be a product listing or technical manual even if was well sourced), there's really not enough here for even a stand alone section, much less a stand alone article. There's some mentions in books, but a lot of it seems to be about literally any other topic, including recycling, fertilizer, and apparently metallurgy. There's passing mention here, but it just passing mention and nothing more.
- Even then, a redirect may not survive indefinitely if someone decides to write an article on single stream recycling, which seems to overall have a good deal more coverage than this topic (e.g., [1], [2]). Although I'm still not totally sure if there's enough to write a stand alone article on that either. GMG talk 13:15, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
- Delete: This appears to be one company's terminology for something many companies offer (my best man works for one). The description here is a lightly rewritten version of the article on the company's page, which is where anyone searching this term would want to end up anyway. I can't find any independent NOTEability either in the references or the topic itself. Maury Markowitz ( talk) 15:25, 31 October 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.
- 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. -- RoySmith (talk) 01:32, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
- Single-stream technology ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
The article is by a WP:SPA who mostly uses as refs links to where you can buy the various products of "eyeson". Seems like pure spam, really. Dicklyon ( talk) 18:35, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
- Delete A search shows that there are a lot of things possessing the attribute of "single-stream technology", but I was not able to locate any in-depth, independent, reliable sources (per WP:RS) on this particular technology. Without such sources, this videoconferencing topic fails notability WP:GNG and verifiability WP:V. The article itself is largely promotional of the eyeson product that uses it, to the point the article could be considered a WP:COATRACK for eyeson. I don't see any good redirect target, either. Hence, delete. -- Mark viking ( talk) 21:15, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 00:10, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
- Isn't the patent EP2498491
[1] a reliable source (per
WP:RS) on this particular technology? Don't we accept the
European Patent Office as an independent and reliable institution? --
Otto Nickl ([User talk:Otto Nickl|talk]]) 07:11, 16 August 2017 (CET)
- Patents are reliable sources for some info, but aren't very useful at establishing notability, or terminology; they're pretty nearly like self-published papers.
Dicklyon (
talk)
05:27, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
- I have add a reference to an independent article from Gartner Inc. and deleted all links to eyeson. -- Otto Nickl ( talk) 23:20, 22 October 2017 (CET)
- Patents are reliable sources for some info, but aren't very useful at establishing notability, or terminology; they're pretty nearly like self-published papers.
Dicklyon (
talk)
05:27, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
- Isn't the patent EP2498491
[1] a reliable source (per
WP:RS) on this particular technology? Don't we accept the
European Patent Office as an independent and reliable institution? --
Otto Nickl ([User talk:Otto Nickl|talk]]) 07:11, 16 August 2017 (CET)
References
- ^ Patent EP2498491 A1 Verfahren und Vorrichtung zur audio- und videobasierten Echtzeit-Kommunikation, September 12th, 2012, EUROPEAN PATENT, Retrieved Oct 16, 2017
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 18:16, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 18:16, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Night fury 12:32, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Night fury 12:32, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
- I'm not the most tech savvy person, and probably not enough so to do it myself competently, but probably merge and redirect to Multipoint control unit, in the hope that the coverage of the broader subject can actually be turned into something resembling an encyclopedia article. If all the unsourced content currently in this article is removed (in addition to the content that would basically be a product listing or technical manual even if was well sourced), there's really not enough here for even a stand alone section, much less a stand alone article. There's some mentions in books, but a lot of it seems to be about literally any other topic, including recycling, fertilizer, and apparently metallurgy. There's passing mention here, but it just passing mention and nothing more.
- Even then, a redirect may not survive indefinitely if someone decides to write an article on single stream recycling, which seems to overall have a good deal more coverage than this topic (e.g., [1], [2]). Although I'm still not totally sure if there's enough to write a stand alone article on that either. GMG talk 13:15, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
- Delete: This appears to be one company's terminology for something many companies offer (my best man works for one). The description here is a lightly rewritten version of the article on the company's page, which is where anyone searching this term would want to end up anyway. I can't find any independent NOTEability either in the references or the topic itself. Maury Markowitz ( talk) 15:25, 31 October 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.