Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alan Saperstein

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. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 21:31, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Alan Saperstein

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Nothing in the article or via a Google News search suggests notability. Drmies (talk) 21:01, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and Internet. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:03, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I have improved the content of this article with all the proper links you requested. He is considered by many of us in media as the father of streaming video on the net and we believe he deserves a place on Wikipedia. He was my mentor and many other students as well. thanks for your consideration Peter Petesoros (talk) 21:49, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Petesoros, you have NOT improved the content: you just added a bunch of resume stuff with YouTube links--that's the worst you can do in an article in which you clearly have a conflict of interest, as you just admitted. Drmies (talk) 15:14, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There are no articles in Jstor or Gscholar that talk about him. You can believe whatever you want, I think he might be pulling your leg. There was no internet in 1989 by the way; the Web as you know it know really only happened around 1994-1995. Modem speeds were too slow in the 1980's to have any sort of streaming video... This appears a hoax. Oaktree b (talk) 03:13, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There is no conflict of interest, as I was just an observer at the time when this webcasting was in its infancy.

He was streaming on the internet in 1993 and yes it was limited but existed. He was a pioneer in this field

hence the reference note included in the history of Technology. This is no hoax and its insulting but you are misinformed if you dont know that we in the government were streaming video in the early nineties. There were no CDN's, so downloading was all that was available to consumers for several years. I will find some articles to improve this article. Petesoros (talk) 22:18, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:44, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete While not a hoax persay, there's nothing here to show notability. None of the external links are to any sources, instead they are to YouTube videos. RickinBaltimore (talk) 15:16, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not enough sourcing to support the notability claim. I removed a ton of bad sources - links to videos that did not even mention the company or the subject, user-generated puffery in IMDB, an anonymous blog, etc. Even with all that removed, the original claim to notability is interesting, but I can't source it. It seems unlikely as written; there were well documented full movie broadcasts on the internet earlier in 1993. This SunSentinel article from 12/6/93 describes the Hotelview product as video stored on a laserdisk, and "eventually" to be distibuted through "interactive television network". This article notes that the company would start distributing on the Internet "within weeks" in late 1997 when it was more common. I assume there was some kind of earlier prototype test, but I was not able to find mention of it anywhere except the "History of Information" site given. That claim looks a little odd compared to sources from that time period; it also links out to the Wikipedia article, which was probably the source. The description was word-for-word from the original Wikipedia article, written by "Saper1", which is also not a good sign. Sorry, maybe I'm missing something. I also fear that since the claim has been sitting there unchallenged for a decade or more, there's going to be some citogenesis Sam Kuru (talk) 00:25, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I can find no evidence of SIGCOV in WP:INDEPENDENT, WP:SECONDARY, reliable sources. The article in it's current state is just WP:PROMO with no substance to back it up, barely verifiable and certainly not the significant coverage to meet the general notability guideline or any other notability standard. Jacona (talk) 01:26, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and lacks indepth coverage.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 06:14, 18 April 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.