Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Virtual Digital Cable

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. - Mailer Diablo 13:48, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Virtual Digital Cable

Non-notable company; 115 Google hits. Wikipedia is not the yellow pages. --Haakon 21:40, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

ATTENTION! If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on a forum, please note that this is not a majority vote, but rather a discussion to establish a consensus among Wikipedia editors on whether a page is suitable for this encyclopedia. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines to help us decide this, and deletion decisions are made on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes. Nonetheless, you are welcome to participate and express your opinions. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments by suspected single-purpose accounts can be tagged using {{subst:spa|username}}

• Delete. It reads like an advertisement, some of the claims are most likely unverifiable ("VDC Corporation, based in Northbrook, Illinois, is the first company to deliver Television On the Desktop" -- I rather doubt that), and it seems otherwise non-notable. --FreelanceWizard 23:54, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. - I use VDC to watch NASA TV, and I got to watch the entire Space Shuttle Mission twoo weeks ago in high quality. —Preceding unsigned comment added by SyncMaster213t (talk • contribs) — Possible single purpose account: SyncMaster213t (talk • contribs) has made little or no other contributions outside this topic.
  • Note - user's first non-vandalism edit. Haakon 17:03, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. My opinion is that if you simply don't like the description and it reads like an advertisement, just change it. I have no problem with this article and quite frankly I find it useful as this company provides a service that should be mentioned in Wikipedia. The point of Wikipedia is to spur innovation, knowledge, ideas, creative thinking and education. Why do you people always feel the need to censor and shut down the creative process simply because you disagree with the words or phrasing of the article? I see no difference between this article and Comcast or Time Warner or ANY other legitimate business that has a listing on Wikipedia. I say keep it and stop your ongoing suppression of ideas, free enterprise, and discovery. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.10.168.12 (talk • contribs) — Possible single purpose account: 204.10.168.12 (talk • contribs) has made little or no other contributions outside this topic.
  • Note - user's first edit. Haakon 18:05, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Mailer Diablo 19:27, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. - As a journalist for multiple trade-presses in the telecommunications industry I can attest that VDC is in an interesting position currently. Broadcasting on the internet, the company is trying to obtain mainstream television programming that is seen on current cable systems but is apparently being held back because of certain copyright, FCC, and internet broadcast restrictions imposed upon them by the larger broadcasters and cable operators (which some see as an illegal act). As many in the cable broadcast industry are currently doing, I'd keep a close eye on this company because many of the actions carried out by this company can impose how the government and the FCC regulates cable television on the internet in the future, since IPTV is now basically unregulated. Just as the last commenter stated, change the article to read more neutral but I believe that this company is true to what they claim and aren't going to disappear anytime soon. --68.23.37.235 18:04, 5 August 2006 (UTC)— Possible single purpose account: 68.23.37.235 (talk • contribs) has made little or no other contributions outside this topic.
  • Note - user's first edit. --Haakon 18:56, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Not sure that being first meets WP:CORP here. Vegaswikian 23:07, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

• Additional comments I again think that what this company is doing in the cable industry does meet Wikipedia's Criteria for companies and corporations as outlined by WP:CORP. For your reference please see the below news stories which DO comply with Wikipedia's first criteria where; "The company or corporation has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the company itself." 68.23.37.235 00:58, 10 August 2006 (UTC)— Possible single purpose account: 68.23.37.235 (talk • contribs) has made little or no other contributions outside this topic.
  • • Internet Streamer VDC Targets C-SPAN
    • IPTV Provider Threatens Access Complaint
    • Bringing Pay TV to the PC

 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Mailer Diablo 23:33, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete, I got 164 GHits, and a good proportion were WP or mirrors. Mentioned as "new" as of 2006-05-23 here. Not a fantastically authoratative source I know, and I'm aware that newness doesn't constitute a failure of WP:CORP, but it really doesn't seem notable. technologyguide.com did have a review of their service, but I'm not sure that makes it notable. I also might add that there have been a lot of new and anon users commenting on this AfD in the past, and (probable) sockpuppeting just screams "spam" to me. Ruaraidh-dobson 00:44, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Fails WP:CORP. Socks need to be dealt with. — NMChico24 03:19, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom as a non-notable company; NMChico24 says it fails Wikipedia's corporation standards. --Bigtop 04:18, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. Resolute 04:46, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. If the company becomes notable, a worthwhile article can be created at the time. Robert A.West (Talk) 06:32, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete the news article starts "A new Internet-TV company plans to launch...". That is not notable news coverage. The news coverage needed for inclusion is about a company doing something notable and then being the in newspaper. Not planning on doing something interesting and being writen about on a slow news day. Jon513 11:10, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Google hits are an incredibly poor metric as to an article's worth to society. Some of the best and most relevant Wiki entries have very few Google hits while some of the least worthwhile entries enjoy millions of Google hits. This company's efforts and technologies have eliminated half the bills paid by my cousin and his family, and it's lead the way towards encapsulating everything over IP, including TV, phone, and browsing the Internet. That's very noteworthy! Mugaliens 11:51, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
  • The Google test may not always be as appropriate a measurement for notability, but neither is your cousin ;-) The criteria for corporate notability is listed in WP:CORP. Haakon 11:58, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Just an example, Haakon. The real test is the fact that their technology is likely to have a tremendous impact on AT&T, Comcast, Roadrunner, and a lot of other ISPs and telcos. It remains very noteworthy. Mugaliens 17:43, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
    • That is not a fact, but speculation. If this company becomes notable in the future for that reason, then an article can be recreated in the future. Resolute 17:54, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:CORP. Eusebeus 12:36, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as above. Martinp23 14:33, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep as above inrelated stories and artiles. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.208.216.57 (talk • contribs) — Possible single purpose account: 70.208.216.57 (talk • contribs) has made little or no other contributions outside this topic.
  • Note - user's first edit. Haakon 19:31, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
• Weak Delete - I'm not sure that the usual criteria can easily be applied from WP:CORP in that the claim to notability is that they are the first to do this. On the other hand, the article itself reads like a press release (it must be rewritten if kept), and the claim for notability has not been sourced. The only article provided actually shows the opposite, as the company is still planning to do it(crystal ball). If the company's claim can be properly sourced and some additional notable media articles about the company are sourced, I'd change to a keep. -- Whpq 20:34, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Seems to meet criteria and intention of WP:CORP to me. SorryGuy 01:09, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, does not meet WP:CORP. --Coredesat talk. ^_^ 04:49, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
• Weak keep - doesn't seem to meet the criteria at WP:CORP but appears that notability is forth-coming. More verifiable resources needed. Mirror Whpq's comments, but voting on the other side. --CPAScott 15:38, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - This is my first time posting, but I wanted to add my support to keeping this page. I'm also a trade journalist following VDC. They are a small company raising some very interesting regulatory issues about how video can be delivered via the Internet. I don't see how this violate violates WP:Corp, just because the mainstream press hasn't picked up on them yet. Wikipedia is about spreading information, not stifling it. The more said about VDC, the better. Jw3000 20:56, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Note - user's first edit. (Yes, I know, you said so, but I'd still like to mark all first-timers) --Haakon 21:00, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Forthcoming importance and a testimonial from someone's cousin? Please!. Neither satisfies WP:CORP. :) Dlohcierekim 06:32, 15 August 2006 (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.