Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Octopus Media Technology


 * 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. Tone 19:11, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

Octopus Media Technology

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Unreachable website that had little to no actual impact during its lifespan. Fully half of the text is not about this company/web site at all but about other things the founder has done in an obvious attempt to pump up the citations. Of the ten citations about the company, seven are 404 or redirected and no longer available. Two of the remaining are simple press releases and one is a story in the Independent newspaper about that paper buying tech from this company for the paper's then-new video news service. None of the sources in the article are independent of the company. The possibility of making this an article about Eborn (the founder) since two-thirds of the cites are about their projects instead is also undermined by the same sourcing problems. There are no other sources available through searches to suggest notability of the person or the company under GNG or any relevant SNG that do not share these issues. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 16:22, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 16:22, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 16:22, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 16:22, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 16:22, 26 August 2020 (UTC)


 * Delete I don’t really see anything here that looks like solid notability. The article has been updated regularly for years with new press releases so although the whole thing is pretty messy the main purpose of it appears to be promotional and I don’t believe most if the contributions have been made by uninvolved editors. Mccapra (talk) 04:22, 2 September 2020 (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.