Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brightcove

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 keep. Neil ☎ 10:56, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Brightcove

Brightcove (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Article fails WP:NOTABILITY, WP:CORP, WP:NOT, WP:SPAM and WP:COI. Article was created by an WP:SPA account with no other edits other than related to Brightcove. Was speedied six times under WP:CSD#G11, as spam advertising. Has a many links but they seem to be merely trivial coverage or mentions including 63 self references to sites owned by Brightcove. Trivial or incidental coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not sufficient to establish notability. The depth of coverage of the subject by the source must be considered. which is clearly noted in the notability guidelines. Advert.Self-promotion and product placement are not the routes to having an encyclopaedia article.

See also - Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Spam#http:.2F.2Fspam.brightcove.com ---Hu12 (talk) 08:21, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

• Keep. Ok forget the 63 self-references, there's 17 good references still left, which is still above average for most WP articles. There's enough material from WSJ, News.com, USA Today, Reuters, etc. to create a satisfactory stub or starter article that passes WP criteria. It doesn't matter if the coverage is shallow if aggregating all the material provides enough for a reliable article. I wouldn't even classify any of the external references as trivial either, remove Brightcove from some of the stories and there would be no story. As for COI issues, liberal usage of the delete key is sufficient. hateless 09:56, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. I was one of the several admins who deleted this article as spam before its creator finally agreed to create a temp version proving notability that someone would approve. We finally copied it into article space because it was neutral and well referenced. Since then, it looks like it has kind of exploded and there is definitely some text creeping in that could be trimmed back. However, this should not be outright deleted. Most of the article is the correct tone and there is a generous number of secondary sources proving notability. --Spike Wilbury ♫ talk 14:41, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
• Forget the references! This particular article is obviously OR SPAM. I don't doubt that a normal piece could be written from secondary sources, but this is not it. Delete this, recreate if anyone not working there cares. I know I don't. Arbeit Sockenpuppe (talk) 18:10, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
• Weak Keep I don't much like the article, and feel it could use some serious condensing, but I think it's legitimate, documented, and not very spam-like. Tim Ross·^talk 18:46, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
• Author Comment I wrote the page and I'm all for deleting the entire 2nd half and just keeping whatever history can be backed up with external references. I was just unclear what the policy is for self-references. (Isn't the site itself a primary resource for all the other stuff written about it?) I also take issue with being labeled a spam account. I made a series of legit edits to Yahoo! Music, LaunchCast, and LAUNCH Media before starting on this long project a few months ago. Other than that I'll just let the external references speak for themselves. -Eddroid (talk) 18:47, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
• Keep and improve. The article is a mess and is in dire need of work, but there are many valid sources available for this. Think outside the box 13:40, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
• Keep based on company notability, they turn up all over the place for on demand tv and videoclips in the UK. Thanks, SqueakBox 18:17, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

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.