Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PLUS7 (2nd nomination)

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 merge to Seven Network. -- RoySmith (talk) 00:46, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

PLUS7

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

insufficient evidence for notability of the video on demand software DGG ( talk ) 05:28, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. sst ✈ 05:43, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. sst ✈ 05:43, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete if needed but certainly Redirect to Seven Network as my searches actually fond a few links here and there at News and browsers but there's simply nothing to suggest a better notable separate article. Notifying the only still noticeably active 1st AfDer Tokyogirl79. SwisterTwister talk 06:25, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I have added a bit more information since this opened up, and I'm certain there is more relevent information that could be added. It does air exclusive titles, full seasons of older programs as well as providing the only method of live streaming Seven's linear broadcast channels, all of which should meet notability. I would agree more sources and some more info should be added. -- Whats new?^(talk) 06:40, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect & Put as a Section of Seven Network, Not particularly significant or notable on it's own; I see it more as a WP:CFORK. This should be put as a section of Seven Network, and changed to a redirect. Aeonx (talk) 07:06, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I'm slightly undecided on this. There are some miniature reviews here and there as well as notifications that the service is available on various platforms, which is more than the article had at the last AfD. However the main issue here is that ultimately there's not a lot going on here source-wise. Many of the articles about new platforms are fairly brief and are along the lines of "this is where you can get this". It's not really anything major and could be considered routine coverage of a sort. I'm also not really certain that we particularly need a list of every place that someone can download this service, since that runs the risk of being a bit of a directory/database or otherwise somewhat indiscriminate information. We could sum this up quite easily by saying that the service is available on Internet-connected TVs and Blu-ray players, mobile devices, and games consoles, then list one or two of the various platforms as an example. The content in the rest of the article is also fairly brief when you get down to it, which does kind of make me wonder if this couldn't just be summed up in a section in the main article for the company, with the option to be restored if the service gains enough coverage to warrant a stronger keep. It's been out for about 5-6 years now and the coverage for this is still fairly nonexistent. It's possible that it could eventually gain enough platforms and coverage to where it could go to HBO Go size, but at this point it seems unlikely. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 10:09, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:35, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 20:45, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into section of Seven Network: I agree with Aenox, this article does not have the amount of content that warrants its own article and could easily be summarised and given its own section in the Seven Network article. – Nick Mitchell 98 ^talk 06:44, 31 January 2016 (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.