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. Sandstein 12:08, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

OpenTV[edit]

OpenTV (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

The article is almost entirely based on non-independent sources, primarily press releases, and has been tagged for three years for this defect. The text is excessively WP:PROMO and WP:BEFORE discloses no evidence of significant independent coverage. Almost all coverage is WP:ROUTINE acquisition, business deal, or product announcement coverage that fails to present enough WP:CORPDEPTH. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 04:31, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 12:22, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Switzerland-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 12:22, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 12:22, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep + Comment Notable = Yes. The article is confusing and promotion and at least half of the sources used are press releases. Why are press releases being used when a quick search on google shows a wealth of great coverage some of them from well-known media outlets like Fortune. Confusing Yes, the first line states openTV is a software platform and the line under it states its a company. Half the article discusses it as a product and the other half discusses it as a company. Then a company named Nagra and their product are discussed. I have made some improvement to the article which includes deleting promotional content and adding sources that are not press releases. But in terms of long-term retention of the article, the author might consider rewriting from scratch.Freetheangels (talk) 01:27, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Freetheangels:, thanks for bringing these points up. If you've found better references, I urge you to add them to the article or this discussion. I so far see only that you changed the URL for one of the press releases from the company's own web site to an industry announcement web site article that is all of two paragraphs long, one of which is a verbatim quote of the original release. That's not exactly showing editorial independence and journalistic judgment. The reference to Fortune made me decide to re-search for RS and led me to this article from almost two years ago which positions OpenTV as little more than a patent troll. This still does not rise to the level of significant coverage in independent reliable sources, in my evaluation. Thanks again. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 15:51, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. – TheGridExe (talk) 15:11, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: does not meet WP:NPRODUCT. Coverage is in passing, routine notices and / or WP:SPIP. K.e.coffman (talk) 16:30, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I agree, lack of references that meets the criteria for establishing notability, fails GNG and WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 10:29, 21 May 2018 (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.