Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/OTT Middleware

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. While content can be fixed by editing, I see a consensus among those basing their view on P&G that sources do not establish notability per our guidelines. I see very little P&G weight on the Keep side, which isn't surprising considering those participants' limited experience here. The author would have done well to heed the advice given to them, and go through AfC. Owen× ☎ 19:29, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

OTT Middleware

[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)

Promotional, sparsely referenced, author refuses AFC review. What refs that do exist fail WP:SIRS. - UtherSRG (talk) 21:19, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. UtherSRG (talk) 21:19, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:59, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm fairly sure the content issues are because the article was generated using an LLM. No comment on the rest yet, may evaluate later. Alpha3031 (t • c) 00:36, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Ah yes, GPTZero says 100% AI. I should have checked that first. - UtherSRG (talk) 00:55, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If this is not deleted, I would strongly urge that it be draftified as WP:ATD so that the LLM-written text can be removed or reworked, and then reviewed again at AFC. - UtherSRG (talk) 11:45, 5 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Definitely not viable for mainspace, is as, and seeing that it has been moved in and out of draft I don't think that "draftify" will be a solution. I have no idea if it is AI-generated, but in any case it does not have sufficient sources to be kept; it reads like OR. Lamona (talk) 16:13, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and improve. I feel this page needs a little work, as many sentences do not have citations. However in addition to existing citations I am seeing a lot more coverage on it in Google, such as 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5.Goodboyjj (talk) 08:08, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep . Per the above evaluation by @Goodboyjj , several sources support the subject and are reliable. I also agree that the page needs improvement, specially if AI used. Another option is to draft it so someone or the original creator can improve.Z3r0h3r000 (talk) 09:44, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 07:46, 5 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I am the author of this article. The article covers a widely recognized middleware technology that is well-supported by numerous academic sources. If there are any concerns about the content, I’m open to revising and improving it accordingly. Mmarietaa (talk) 19:20, 5 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Left guide (talk) 08:43, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Most of the sources cited in the article as well as by Goodboyjj are random low-quality websites. None of the academic sources actually mention middleware, and I can't find any that do. The only serious sources I can find about OTT/over-the-top middleware are random business news about awarded contracts, acquisitions, and so on, which don't help at all with writing an article about the thing. Even if the topic were notable on its own, the current article wouldn't be of much help. As mentioned above, it's likely written with an LLM, but in any case it's got huge swathes of text with basically no relevant quality sources. -- Maddy from Celeste (WAVEDASH) 22:25, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I understand your concern about varied terminology. While "OTT middleware" might not be the only term used, the article focuses on the functional definition – the critical "glue" components (CMS, SMS, DRM, CDN integration, etc.) essential for any OTT service. The academic citations, though sometimes using broader terms like "OTT platform" or "backend solutions," describe these exact functionalities and their importance. My aim is to show that the concept and its components are widely discussed and notable in reliable sources, even if the precise word "middleware" isn't always present. I will refine the article to explicitly connect these broader terms to the core middleware functions, ensuring clarity on the subject's scope and notability. Mmarietaa (talk) 09:02, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

As the author, I've closely followed this discussion. I have cleaned up the document to make it less AI and removed content that is unsourced. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mmarietaa (talk • contribs) 10:41, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: A lot of text that says very little, and the sources do not back up the text they are cited for. Not terribly surprising as an LLM generated article. I'm unconvinced that this is a topic deserving of its own article, but if it is, it would be best to start over. REAL_MOUSE_IRL talk 11:51, 19 July 2025 (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.