Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Individual television experience


 * 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. j⚛e deckertalk 02:02, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Individual television experience

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

G11 declined, so AfD. I found this article when checking "what links here" to Televisionary, recently deleted via AfD. As with televisionary this appears to be a marketing buzzword propagated by Ericsson and a few other cable and internet television companies. The refs either don't mention this term at all or mention it in that context, often as part of one of the company's websites or a press release. It has had the advert tag since 2009. I still think it's an easy G11, but it's longer and has more [though heavily redundant] sources, but oh well. It also fails the GNG because there may be multiple sources here, but it has not received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources. &mdash;  Rhododendrites talk  |  16:18, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:05, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:05, 14 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete Didn't find any independent reliable sources with significant coverage of the topic. Sometimes an article uses the phrase, but not clearly in reference to the topic of this article, and even then it's just a trivial single sentence in passing. The Wikipedia article includes a lot of references to websites that are not independent reliable sources; many are press releases, some are blog posts. There is heavy referencing of what sounds like a guide to exhibitors at a trade show called IBC 2008, which I did not locate, but I'm guessing there are independence/reliable source issues with the source. I also did not translate the Russian articles. Perhaps I'm dismissing good sources; please let me know if you think that's true and I'll try harder to look into them. Agyle (talk) 23:07, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar ♔  00:36, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

 
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, j⚛e deckertalk 17:11, 28 May 2014 (UTC)


 * 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.