Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ITVmediaPlayer Source: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/ITVmediaPlayer

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. → Call me Hahc21 21:37, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

ITVmediaPlayer

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

Non-notable product, written as an advertisement by a user (SPA) whose years-long edit history consists in proposing/making this article and adding references to it in other articles. — Rhododendrites ^talk | 14:41, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I found a makeuseof.com review. Makeuseof.com is used elsewhere in Wikipedia, and I'm not finding any RSN discussions about it. It's at best a poor indicator of notability. --Ronz (talk) 17:58, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Note that this is unrelated to ITVplayer, the internet television service of major UK TV broadcaster ITV. -- Finlay McWalterჷTalk 22:21, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Pure spam. Even worse if the SPA working on it has WP:COI. Nothing notable or noteworthy. Wikipedia is not a directory of products ES &L 11:14, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No references that prove notability. The references themselves are also questionable. Greedo 8 16:48, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete COI and referencing issues, along with the probable illegality of the program (and even if it is legal, it's probably on the level of Rabbit TV in being a front-end for outside services). Aereo this isn't. Nate • (chatter) 23:45, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; this doesn't look all that notable, even before taking into account the practically-minimal sourcing (mostly to the websites for this product and a sister product, with the other sources being an Intel developer partner listing and a Wikipedia article) and the likely conflict-of-interest issues. --WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:53, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:05, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:05, 27 March 2014 (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.