Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/EvoStream

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. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 12:58, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

EvoStream (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I don't see this meeting

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:21, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:21, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - It looks like this just isn't really notable. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 13:06, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Keep - The product is probably sufficiently notable, but the page reads like a specification sheet. Since notability is a property of a subject, not an article's contents (Wikipedia:Notability), this page deserves a chance for improvement. If the author (User:BMeiss) would be willing to do some work on the page to improve it and offer citations, that would be sufficient. --69.204.153.39 (talk) 15:59, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Software article of unclear notability, lacking independent references. Refs provided are company pages and press releases. A search turned up no significant
  WP:RS coverage. Article was created by an SPA as possibly promotional. Dialectric (talk) 16:16, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Keep - Hello. What sort of references above what is already presented would be required to sufficiently meet the standards? The product is actively used and upkept. I have worked with the community here to make sure that the page is not an ad but is instead an unbiased representation of the Media Server. We've modled it after the other Media Server entries that are already found here on wikipedia. I'm of course happy to make any edits as suggested by the moderators and community.User:BMeiss 18:07, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The key is having significant coverage in multiple independent, reliable sources. These terms have specific meanings on wikipedia that are laid out in wikipedia policies. See

WP:N.Dialectric (talk) 00:30, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

• Delete for now unless someone wants to draft and userfy themselves until a better article can be made as I found a few links at News, Books, browser and Highbeam but nothing to suggest outstanding improvement. SwisterTwister talk 05:56, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That does make sense. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 06:27, 7 October 2015 (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.