Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nowlive

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. $Salvio$ ^{Let's talk about it!} 23:04, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nowlive[edit]

[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)

KeralaWikiman (talk) 07:14, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Redditaddict6 9 07:41, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Redditaddict6 9 07:41, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Redditaddict6 9 07:41, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep, no rationale given. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 14:11, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete article is WP:G11 promotional, and on a company that doesn't appear to meet WP:GNG. power~enwiki (π, ν) 03:59, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Usually, this would be a slam-dunk promotional deletion, but it's hard to come up with that when the nominator doesn't have any rationale at all... Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 07:44, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
~~Speedy~~ Delete - ~~I agree with power~enwiki, it's a fairly blatant G11,~~ and probably an WP:NCORP failure. I'd have no complaints if it had been speedily kept before a delete !voter appeared, however we can make our own judgements even if the nom fails to - I view it as equivalent to how discussion continues if the nom withdraws after a non-keep !vote. Nom has already had a message dropped about need to provide justification. Nosebagbear (talk) 21:12, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As regards statement below, G11 no longer applies, as there is a safe revision to revert to. However, I do believe that WP:NCORP still stands, as while there were many short mentions, the only significant articles I could find didn't satisfy independent. Nosebagbear (talk) 15:28, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment In regards to the G11 !votes, did anybody actually check the history? If you did, you'll notice that the first revision of the page wasn't too bad. However, in June 2015, a user made their first edit "updating" the article to its promotional state. See Special:Diff/668620354.--SkyGazer 512 ^{Oh no, what did I do this time?} 15:13, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

SkyGazer 512 - an editor after my own heart and better. I usually check recent revisions, but didn't follow it back far enough. You are right in that my sweep didn't go far enough. I'll review on the NCORP basis now Nosebagbear (talk)

Tbh, I was actually about to !vote for speedy delete as well, until I just happened to check the history and was curious to see what the first revision looked like. I've noticed what happened to this article happens surprisingly often - an article is created with little issues, and a COI editor (often paid) rewrites it to make it completely promotional, and it isn't noticed for years or ever - another example of this that I recently found is this.--SkyGazer 512 ^{Oh no, what did I do this time?} 15:35, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - minor, non-notable streaming technology. Article is pure promotional puffery. As noted it is "under new management" which likely accounts for its commercial tone. Can find no article that discusses the company or technology in any meaningful way. --Leflyman^Talk 15:57, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There's two articles under "Press Coverage" that are somewhat strong: the USA today article and the Techcrunch article. The rest are passing mentions or blogs. The Techcrunch article is arguably not significant or reliable. Most of it's based on company marketing materials, and it's extremely short. I don't think it discusses the topic in enough detail to warrant counting as a source that supports notability. The USA Today article has about 4 paragraphs that discuss the app directly, but two of them are the CEO's quotes and a third is about what LMG "plans to do". Basically, all we have from these two sources is that this app can livestream in a grid of a few screens at once. Not a strong case for notability, and in my opinion fails WP:ORGCRITE. – FenixFeather ^{(talk)(Contribs)} 22:33, 4 September 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.