Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/InPlayer

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. Nakon 07:05, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

InPlayer

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

Spammer created, looks spammy itself. Has this organisation really had appropriate external attention paid to it, or is it just sending out press releases? Andy Dingley (talk) 11:07, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:36, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:37, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:37, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:37, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete None of the sources in the current article are acceptable RS', therefore all of the content on the current page needs to be deleted for WP:V, even happened to be notable. CorporateM (Talk) 02:13, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Clearly Promotional ,fails WP:ORG and lacks WP:RS.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 04:10, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep These guys are pretty new in their niche, but are established as thought leaders. They are doing a nice job on social media and they run a cool blog. I agree that the wiki copy is not ideally written, but I can edit it, if the page stays live. Disclaimer: I am running a company, partnering InPlayer 09:41, 7 April 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Digiwizz (talk • contribs)

New? They're founded in 2010, which is some time back in the Cretaceous period for internet time. Has attention been paid to them by independent commentators?

I'm seeing a 2010 Techcrunch piece [1] which is saying "revolutionary new product coming along soon" and a talking head piece [2] (not even independent) from 2015 saying "This is going to be the next big thing". So what happened in the meantime? If they didn't start grabbing a big slice of it within that time, are they really notable? I'm not seeing it. Andy Dingley (talk) 09:18, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The initial company called Invidious is based in 2010. They re-breanded into InPlayer a few months ago. As far as I now, they focus on sports [3] entertainment (Glory, Eversport, Filmbox Live) and work with the major OVPs to provide payment software for video streamers. The bottom line is that they are not "ground-braking", new tech company, but they are pretty good in their niche. Digiwizz 12:29, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Then this article needs to demonstrate that, with independent coverage that isn't just from press releases. Coverage of Invidious / Invideous would do that too, but it needs to be coverage of something.

Did someone really choose that as a product name for a thing presumably involving DRM? Now that was illiterate marketing genius having a particularly special day. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:41, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the ex name was shambles. I bet that's why they went through the rebranding process. I'll try to edit the page and make it more credible. Digiwizz 10:43, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In which case I'm inclined to Keep, just so that we can categorise the name redirect along with the Nissan Cedric, the Chevy Nova and Pocari Sweat. Andy Dingley (talk) 08:56, 8 April 2015 (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.