Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Meridix

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. The consensus for the current pair of articles under consideration is to Delete. Some editors propose Draft:Meridix as a version of the article that should be moved to mainspace and kept, however, others disagree with that version as well. So, we will delete the two articles brought to this AfD, and the editors working on Draft:Meridix would be well advised to continue working on that draft, address the reviewer's comments, and resubmit it through the WP:AFC process. ST47 (talk) 16:49, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Meridix

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

No indication of notability for the company or its product. None of the cited sources provide third-party coverage beyond a passing mention. The only one I found via Google News is this, local news that indicates the company was tiny as of 2012. That's not enough. Huon (talk) 23:16, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Huon (talk) 23:16, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Huon (talk) 23:16, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. Huon (talk) 23:16, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This article should not be deleted, but instead updated to the proposed draft - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Meridix. Meridix has been in Wikipedia since 2008 but the current article contains outdated information. The draft has significantly updated third-party references (the 2012 article cited above is too old). Meridix has been used for 155,000 live events (see draft), is venture backed (see draft), and is streaming industry recognized by other services/companies featured on Wikipedia, including Wirecast (see http://www.telestream.net/wirecast/partners.htm), VMix (see https://www.vmix.com/partners), XSplit (see https://www.xsplit.com/partners), Hauppauge Computer Works (see http://www.hauppauge.com/pages/products/data_streameez-pro.html#tabs-5), Sling Media (see https://www.myslingstudio.com/Help/KB/KB-1148.aspx#meridix), Open Broadcaster Software (see https://github.com/obsproject/obs-studio/blob/master/plugins/rtmp-services/data/services.json), Wowza Streaming Engine (see https://www.wowza.com/blog/meridix-lets-any-customer-stream-sports-like-the-pros) and others. LiveStreamingExpert (talk) 16:04, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - the draft is in no way suitable to replace either article. It has a single reliable third-party source, the Washington Post, which writes a single sentence about Meridix in their "local business" section. That's not significant coverage. Huon (talk) 19:55, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Respectfully disagree. There are 20+ third-party references in the draft, more were just added. Subject has no issue demonstrating scale or industry recognition. Draft can be improved, but the subject does not deserve deletion. LiveStreamingExpert (talk) 16:28, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal - as there is a new version of the article in Draft, I would propose closing this AfD, moving the Draft to Mainspace, and starting a new AfD for the revised article - if this article is deleted it will likely be re-created with the new version, so we could save a lot of time and effort by moving the AfD to the new version - Epinoia (talk) 16:59, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 15:33, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have to say I agree with Epinoia move this article to a draft where those interested in the article can work on it. As for notability I don't see much yes there citations but only part of the article is cited. Itsabouttech (talk) 19:10, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Draft has been updated with additional references and to improve neutrality, ready for mainspace. LiveStreamingExpert (talk) 21:16, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:NCORP and WP:GNG. If it's recreated, just take it back to AFD and it will sort itself out through the usual process. The real time waister is proposing complicated moves with drafts, etc.4meter4 (talk) 14:45, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Respectfully disagree. Company has streamed 155,000+ sporting events, been in business for 16 years, is integrated within leading tools in the space (many of which themselves are on Wikipedia). Again today updated draft with more authoritative industry references (Sports Video Group, Crain's Chicago Business, SportTechie, Wowza, St. Louis Business Journal). The draft process was recommended by several admins to improve the outdated information in the existing article, rather than deleting it. LiveStreamingExpert (talk) 20:14, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The issue here is that the article lacks sufficient secondary and tertiary sources about Meridix specifically. The mentions of Meridix in the sources which are independent of the subject only mention the organization tangentially. Those which are more directly about Meridix are primary sources or sourced with connections to Meridix which are not useable on wikipedia. In short, the article does not have sources which show "Significant coverage" while being simultaneously "independent". Those with significant coverage are connected to the subject and therefore consider "not Reliable". This is why it fails WP:GNG. User:ToBeFree has perfectly pulled apart every source and explained why it can't be trusted per WP:Verifiability. It's a non-notable company. No question.4meter4 (talk) 03:12, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

For notability, the concern that led to the creation of this discussion, the current state of the article is theoretically irrelevant. Notability is a property of the described topic, not the article; the "proposal" and the agreeing comment are based on wrong assumptions.

It is furthermore irrelevant how many sporting events the company has streamed, and it is irrelevant how large the quantity of insignificant third-party mentions is. What would actually be required is significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Such coverage does not seem to exist. There is also no point in creating or keeping a draft about a non-notable company, as no amount of editing can overcome this lack of notability.

I'd specifically like to have a closer look at the best sources a paid editor has managed to find about the subject (taken from Draft:Meridix).

[1]: Article topic's website, not independent.
[2]: Quotes and relies too strongly on statements by the CEO of the article subject. Not independent.
[3]: Quotes and relies too strongly on statements by the CEO of the article subject. Not independent.
[4]: Quotes and relies too strongly on statements by the CEO of the article subject. Not independent.
[5]: Written by the founder and editor of the website, lacks editorial oversight.

Anyone can create a personal web page, self-publish a book, or claim to be an expert. That is why self-published material such as books, patents, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, personal or group blogs (as distinguished from newsblogs, above), content farms, internet forum postings, and social media postings are largely not acceptable as sources.
— WP:SPS

Not reliable.

[6]: Neither independent nor reliable, and not significant coverage either.
[7]: Neither independent nor reliable, and not significant coverage either.
[8]: Behind a loginwall/paywall. Seems to be a personal opinion piece, as it starts with I learned something new last week. Minnesota has worse weather than we do and it’s really screwing up outdoor high school sports. Reliability very doubtful and possibly comparable to a personal blog.
YouTube link: Unreliable source, possibly WP:LINKVIO.
[9]: Neither significant coverage, nor independent: The "What People are saying" footer quotes the founder of Meridix.
[10]: Not significant coverage, mentioned among 4 other startups with one very short paragraph of text dedicated to each.
[11]: Not significant coverage, mentioned among 5 other startups with one very short paragraph of text dedicated to each.
[12]: Not a secondary source.

"Sources" should be secondary sources, as those provide the most objective evidence of notability.
— WP:GNG

Wikipedia is a tertiary source: see WP:PSTS, a part of the original research policy, for details. Not significant coverage either.

[13]: Not significant coverage; a "partner" list is also, per definition, not independent.
[14]: Not significant coverage; a "partner" list is also, per definition, not independent.
[15]: Not significant coverage; a "partner" list is also, per definition, not independent.
[16]: Not describing the article topic itself: Has no effect on the article topic's notability.
[17]: Not describing the article topic itself: Has no effect on the article topic's notability.
[18]: Not significant coverage; independence doubtful.
[19]: Not describing the article topic itself: Has no effect on the article topic's notability.
[20]: Not describing the article topic itself: Has no effect on the article topic's notability.
[21]: A marketplace description is not a reliable source; it lacks editorial oversight. Statements provided by the article topic are not independent.
[22]: A marketplace description is not a reliable source; it lacks editorial oversight. Statements provided by the article topic are not independent.
[23]: A blogspot blog article (WP:SPS) that does not even dedicate a single paragraph to the article subject but rather mentions it together with another company in a huge list. Not significant coverage, not a reliable source of information.
[24]: Does not even contain the term "Meridix".
One more reference has been mentioned above by the article creator... [25]... a Github page. WP:SPS applies. Not significant coverage either.

I also fail to find any additional citations, or I would add them to the article. Delete article, forget the draft. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 22:39, 24 September 2019 (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.