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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 13:52, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

UltraStream[edit]

UltraStream (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)

Signed by Barts1a Suggestions/complements? Complaints and constructive criticism? 12:52, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as nom. The article does not provide any verifiable reliable source. Signed by Barts1a Suggestions/complements? Complaints and constructive criticism? 12:53, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions.
• Delete per nomination. Non-notable Internet radio station. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 13:13, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Fails WP:N and WP:V hard, and although it probably doesn't need to be said, it fails WP:WEB too.-- Vörös  yes?  18:58, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• I'm not entirely sure why I got a notification about this, as I only ever edited the article once — and even that was generic cleanup in the process of doing a batch recategorization rather than actual content. That said, the article doesn't seem to me to have any really reliable sources, and the topic itself doesn't seem particularly notable — so I guess I'd go with the delete. Bearcat (talk) 19:14, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - as per Nom and rational of Vörös. There is something very strange going on here, as 81.100.64.222 claims in their "blank the page" edit summary that the text is copyrighted (and hence blanks the page), which is quite strange seeing as they added most of it. I'd request that the administrator who closes this AFD look as this additional issue further, what ever the outcome - Rgds, - Trident13 (talk) 21:52, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think he is claiming copyright for himself as the author. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 22:15, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have claimed copyright as the author - I wrote the text, and I claim copyright over it. Either write some new copy for this unnoteworthy 'radio station', or just delete the article 81.100.64.222 (talk) 22:28, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You cannot claim copyright. The edit box has a notice below "save page" that reads "If you do not want your writing to be edited, used, and redistributed at will, then do not submit it here. All text that you did not write yourself, except brief excerpts, must be available under terms consistent with Wikipedia's Terms of Use before you submit it." There is also one above that reads "You irrevocably agree to release your contributions under the CC-BY-SA 3.0 License and the GFDL" Signed by Barts1a Suggestions/complements? Complaints and constructive criticism? 22:29, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You of course hold the copyright to your additions, but you irrevocably agreed to license your contributions to Wikipedia when you clicked "Save page".--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 22:31, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Update 81.100.64.222 has been blocked indef for legal threats, and rightly so (If not for legal threats; then for continued claims of copyright when they handed it to wikipedia irrevocably when they saved that article) Signed by Barts1a Suggestions/complements? Complaints and constructive criticism? 22:39, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I vote for deletion - on the good advice of my peers this seems to be a non noteworthy Internet Radio station (User: Ihcoyc) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jsecure (talk • contribs) 22:56, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Does not meet WP:N or WP:GNG. Possibly candidate for WP:CSD#A7. Dlohcierekim 00:13, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment The anon seems angry that the subject has been called "non-notable", seemingly without understanding its specialized use here. He writes that calling it such is "libelous". I would courtesy blank this page after closure. Dlohcierekim 00:17, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Quite understandable that ordinary people don't understand the "specialised use" of notability when there are regular contributors too who don't understand why a principle that was intended to control abuse is used to destroy information that is helpful even if not vital and treating ordinary people's hard work and good will as something of trivial importance.Opbeith (talk) 09:42, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Couldn't agree more Opbeith - the original writer of this article champions it's deletion because the information shown in the article is not available anywhere else. It's a genuinely interesting insight into the development of an actively trading LTD company which trades with many countries around the world. The addition of this information to Wikipedia, in a page carefully and meticulously curated, is a gift to Wikipedia. This kind of insightful information is not available elsewhere, and some might say an insight into the fragile beginnings of this company might even be a hinderance to the company, in a commercial sense, but the owner has taken the decision to gift this information to wikipedia anyway. For people to dismiss the information as not noteable, is in some ways heartbreaking. Nevertheless, since Wikipedia users feel this information is not of interest and must be destroyed, within two or three days it will all be lost permanently, and it is unlikely the information in this article will be made public again. This is why the original author champions it's deletion; because it was a real, genuine contribution to wikipedia, that people were quick to label as worthless. Really valuable insights like this should be saved for an audience that will give them the appreciation they deserve, and look after them in the way they should be looked after. Jsecure (talk) 19:22, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There are plenty of web hosting services-- so the information need not be lost forever. The information need not be destroyed. It just does not belong in an encyclopedia. Try MySpace. Dlohcierekim 19:36, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thankyou for your response Dlohcierekim. This information was released to the public specially, to add value to Wikipedia. To make Wikipedia the source which has more in depth information on the companies and things and topics which shape our world and online environment, than anywhere else. I don't choose to disclose this kind of very honest and vulnerable data on the start of the company to any other website. Let it be destroyed next Tuesday. Jsecure (talk) 19:45, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just an observation, but Jsecure you were the original creator and heavy initial editor of this article, so I assume that by your comment "the original writer of this article champions it's deletion" you are also the Anon 81.100.64.222? The problem here is that its not about individual editors feelings, its about a clear set of tests which require third party referencing to resultantly establish encyclopedic notability, and (presently) UltraStream doesn't pass these tests. Rgds, --Trident13 (talk) 19:47, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just an observation, but your pursuit of my edits and articles user Trident13, and your tagging of them as irrelevant and 'not notable', has been very very meticulous. One might say you wish me to understand I am irrelevant. In any case, this article WILL be permanently deleted next Tuesday. And I won't re-create it. So you win. We're going to have your book burning party, and me and my data will be scorched out permanently. Please now don't be seen to rub it in... I am very aware from the other comments all over this article and it's talk page, that the wikipedia community does not rate this content. Jsecure (talk) 19:54, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's kind of you, but if the subject does become notable, there will be the requisite 3rd RS w/ verifiable information. If that becomes the case, an article on the subject will be inevitable. Dlohcierekim 19:51, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You might be right, user Dlohcierekim... It's good food for thought... Jsecure (talk) 19:56, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Equally troubling is the lack of understanding that tends to seek the inclusion of random information than is not sufficiently notable to be included in an encyclopedia. Such hard work would better serve the project by building information on subjects that are notable. Dlohcierekim 13:17, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Nothing to suggest notability. EEng (talk) 23:42, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment This AfD is still going?? Look people, the fact is that this article does not pass WP:N or WP:V at all, and if the subject in question can't even pass our policy for verifiable sourcing, then it does not deserve an article on Wikipedia. -- Vörös  yes?  19:06, 6 December 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.