Deletion of InfoStreet

Comment: Its voluminous sources notwithstanding, this article fails to demonstrate . Sources are either primary or trivial in their coverage. '''Side note''': I think we should take a deep breath before impugning the motives of new editors. I appreciate your strong advocacy in laying out the case against the article and mostly agree with your points, as evidenced by my "delete." But I am not so sure about your dismissal of trade publications. The simple truth is that many techy things are only covered by trade specific publications. If we preclude them entirely as WP:RS we will be setting up barriers to articles about legitimate topics. I would agree though that trade pubs need to be treated with some caution. Not all are equal
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:N)

Comment: I thank you for your words. About your last point: See our corporate inclusion guideline.  says that every article must have at least one mainstream source, and that "media of limited interest and circulation" are OK only if an article already has at least one mainstream source. (This is true only for corporations; in this regard, Wikipedia's inclusion criteria are more strict regarding corporations than regarding anything else.) True, the SD Times and Directions refs may fail |SIGCOV and/or INDY, but in addition, I think that they also point to "media of limited interest and circulation". Cheers
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:AUD||WP:42)