Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ocean Blue Software

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 no consensus. Significant disagreement on whether sources are adequate. No prejudice to a speedy renomination following an attempt to rewrite the article from those sources. Shimeru (talk) 19:40, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ocean Blue Software

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

Promotion for non-notable company, article by company representative. No significant coverage. Haakon (talk) 10:46, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. Yet another run of the mill tech business promoting itself on Wikipedia. There's no reason that anyone outside the industry would have ever heard of them: a digital TV software supplier, specialising in the development of software solutions for the Digital TV, mobile entertainment, DVB and IPTV markets. Ocean Blue develops and sells the embedded software components needed for digital TV receivers; primarily integrated digital TVs (iDTVs) and set top boxes (STBs). - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 14:24, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no indication of notability. . . Wayne Riddock (talk) 16:36, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions.
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 14:26, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep google it has plenty of sources. Lets just clean up the article a bit so it has a neutral tone. --Alpha Quadrant (talk) 20:00, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Its notable enough to be listed in 62 places in a search of valid news sources. Click the link at the top of the AFD that says "Google news search". Dream Focus 00:47, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:CORP - the sources suggested (by DreamFocus who seems to vote keep for literally anything) above seem to be press releases. --Cameron Scott (talk) 12:32, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Any reason for the personal attack? I vote delete on somethings, just not those that have sources. Those aren't just press releases, but legitimate news outlets covering the announcement of this technology. [1] [2] Dream Focus 06:47, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep this is the first time that we have attempted to create a Wikipedia page so rather than just deleting us it would be great if you could give us some constructive help to improve the page so that it can be kept please, rather than just deleting it OceanBlue2010 (talk) 14:41, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, so far all of the sources in Google news are press releases/product announcements, or references to their own white paper. Unless better sources can be found, I do not think this is notable. OceanBlue2010, since you asked for suggestions, if the article is deleted, you can ask to have it put in your userspace--there is no guarantee that that request will be honored, however. Please read WP:COI, WP:RS, and WP:N for more information on relevant policies, but the bottom line is you are strongly discouraged from writing about a topic in which you have a vested interest. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me on my talk page. --Nuujinn (talk) 21:09, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Cameron Scott. Press releases by a company do not assert notability of that company. SnottyWong talk 16:17, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's not the most notable company, but I think it passes notability, if only by a tiny bit. While the article needs a rewrite to have a more neutral tone, the company is notable. - EdoDodo ^talk 15:46, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Question Please could you advise why it is ok for companies like Virgin Media to have over 100 links to press releases from their website? Is this because it is under 'notes' rather than 'references'?? OceanBlue2010 (talk) 15:52, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I found a few valid references (e.g., http://news.cnet.com/8301-17938_105-10323442-1.html) about Talking TV, their main product. It needs some serious rewriting though. Pxtreme75 (talk) 21:44, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Question, wouldn't that serve to establish notability of the software rather than the company? --Nuujinn (talk) 00:01, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Tricky question. My opinion as suggested in WP:PRODUCT is that together they deserve a joined article. It is not clear that it should focus on the product or the company thought. It is difficult to differentiate them at this stage. Pxtreme75 (talk) 06:34, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Then I would suggest the article be retooled to cover the company and include a short section on the product, and let's see if that passes notability requirements. Nuujinn (talk) 11:44, 28 May 2010 (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.