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]