Talk:Bitmovin

Assessment of article's sources: completely unacceptable

I've reviewed this article's sources. What I've found:

• This is a personal site, fails WP:RS.
• This is a product page and so does not establish notability.
• This is a category for articles, not a specific article. Furthermore, it's a blog that's affiliated with the company.
• This does mention indeed mention them, but is not in-depth coverage.
• This doesn't even mention Bitmovin.
• The following sources are affiliated and so do not establish notability: [1], [2], [3], [4]
• The following sources appear to be press releases and so do not establish notability: [5], [6], [7], [8]
• The following are lists or directories and do not estalish notability any more than the phonebook does: [9], [10], [11]
• The following sources do not appear to exist, and given the "quality" of the other sources, I'm not inclined to believe that they're worth digging up on Internet Archive: [12], [13], [14], [15]

None of the sources support notability. Ian.thomson (talk) 09:42, 19 December 2016 (UTC)