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 merge‎ to Williams Communications#Telecommunications. This looks like the most suitable compromise between those who have been in this discussion. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:09, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

IBEAM Broadcasting Corporation[edit]

IBEAM Broadcasting Corporation (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)

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

This is pretty clearly an advertisement piece. microbiologyMarcus ^{(petri dish)} 14:10, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Promotional tone is not valid grounds on its own for deletion: that's an issue can be cleaned up, unless an article is blatant advertising and needs a complete rewrite, in which case speedy deletion G11 is used. Although the article doesn't currently make it clear, the company was closed in 2002 [1], so advertising seems unlikely. As the article clearly asserts notability per WP:CORP, can nominator please clarify their rationale for deletion? Wikishovel (talk) 14:20, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and California. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:30, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I'd like to point out a few things regarding the significance of iBEAM Broadcasting Corporation:
  • The page has been in existence for nearly two decades, and while some references might be disappearing due to the age of the company, it doesn't diminish the historical importance of the content.
  • iBEAM Broadcasting Corporation was foundational to the streaming industry. It's widely recognized within the industry that this company was a precursor to the streaming giants we see today, such as Netflix, Apple, Hulu, and others. Its influence was global.
  • The mention of 60 million streams, which is cited, underscores its significance. To put it in perspective, during its prime, this was more traffic than major platforms like Yahoo.
  • Rather than just suggesting it be deleted, please suggest how to make it better or be more specific.

Given these points, it's evident that the company played a pivotal role in the evolution of online streaming, and its page serves as a historical reference, not an advertisement. nilslahr (talk) 15:00, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Internet. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:32, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment There's this magazine article about the iBeam multimedia portal: [2] --Mika1h (talk) 00:38, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• The current tone of the article is entirely inappropriate (see also: WP:NPOV, section: Impartial tone, subsection WP:SUBJECTIVE), which is not too surprising given its lifted straight from the press releases used as references. Contra Wikishovel, I believe this is a clear WP:DEL-REASON #4 even if it doesn't meet #1. It may be theoretically possible to write an article that does not have such inappropriate tone even sourced mostly from press releases . I don't think this is a G11, which would be subject to deletion in draftspace also, so if someone wants to make the attempt, no objections. But this is not suitable for mainspace. Delete. Alpha3031 (t • c) 04:14, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:26, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge select content to Williams Communications#Telecommunications, which is was merged into; and a mention that if a company is dead, WP:PROMO can't be obviously invoked unless you have a modified DeLorean in your driveway. Nate • (chatter) 16:12, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree that promotional or otherwise non-neutral tone belongs on the encyclopedia, even if the entity being promoted could not possibly stand to be affected. The legal reason why we would not allow advertising is because it's a deceptive way of gaining financial advantage (WP:COVERT), and we extend that to well beyond what is required by law because a) we don't like it, b) an abundance of caution, and c) it being a good general principle. Same as copyright here. But even were it perfectly fine and dandy otherwise, PROMO is fundamentally unencyclopedic and a clear violation of NPOV. For example, if someone created an article with the following text, it should be deleted under G11 because it is an ad even though FooBar Corporation does not exist and could not possibly benefit from advertising:

About FooBar

FooBar Corporation is the next-generation leader in widget innovation. Our cutting-edge widgets are used by millions of people around the globe, and we are committed to providing our customers with the best possible products and services. FooBar widgets are known for their state-of-the-art technology, sleek design, and intuitive user interface. We use only the highest quality materials and components in our widgets, and we back our products with a satisfaction guarantee. If you are looking for the most innovative and user-friendly widgets on the market, look no further than FooBar Corporation. Our widgets are sure to revolutionise your workflow and exceed your expectations.

Alpha3031 (t • c) 13:13, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - The concerns regarding the promotional tone of the article are valid and should be addressed through editing, not deletion. The historical significance of IBEAM Broadcasting Corporation in the development of streaming media technology is well-documented and notable for several reasons:
  • The company's closure in 2002 indicates that the article is not serving a promotional purpose but is a historical record.
  • IBEAM's technological contributions, such as global load balancing and edge networking, are substantiated by patents and their adoption in the industry, which is a testament to their significance.
  • The partnerships and roles in major streaming events that IBEAM held are a matter of public record and contribute to the notability of the company.
  • While the article may source from press releases, the information presented is factual and relevant to the company's technological advancements and industry impact. Credible sources like Streaming Media Magazine provide an objective perspective on these contributions.
  • Preserving information about defunct companies is crucial for historical accuracy and understanding industry evolution. The loss of sources over time should encourage us to maintain and enhance the article rather than remove it.

Given these points, the IBEAM Broadcasting Corporation article warrants retention and improvement. It provides valuable historical insight into the early days of streaming media, a pivotal aspect of today's internet. Deletion would result in a significant gap in the historical context for readers interested in the evolution of streaming technology. Nilslahr (talk) 23:37, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This is somewhat a moot point, but you should probably properly disclose your COI, by the way. You can find how to do so at WP:DISCLOSE. Are you committing to fixing things up yourself or are you expecting other people to do it for you? Alpha3031 (t • c) 12:15, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Fails WP:CORP: no in-depth coverage in multiple reliable sources. Corporations have higher requirements for sources to combat just the kind of promotional content we see in this article. --Mika1h (talk) 00:29, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge select content to Williams Communications#Telecommunications as per WP:ATD and suggestion above and then Delete. This is a company therefore GNG/WP:NCORP requires at least two deep or significant sources with each source containing "Independent Content" showing in-depth information *on the company*. "Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. The tone of the article is entirely inappropriate and is PEACOCK and PROMO. Just the first couple of sentences alone raise the following issues:

iBEAM Broadcasting Corporation was a Media Streaming Company. Established in 1998, iBEAM was instrumental^{[according to whom?]} in the invention^{[according to whom?]} of the Content Delivery Network for Streaming Media. The company played a pivotal role^{[according to whom?]} in aiding giants^{[peacock prose]} like Real Networks and Microsoft in scaling their services.^{[according to whom?]} iBEAM was responsible^{[according to whom?]} for introducing groundbreaking^{[peacock prose]} technologies such as global load balancing, edge networking, distributed streaming, and digital data satellite delivery^{[according to whom?]}.

None of the references meet the criteria and perhaps due to the age of the company I'm unable to locate any references that meet the criteria. HighKing⁺⁺ 14:31, 7 November 2023 (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.