Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/MediaCoder: Difference between revisions

MediaCoder (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • AfD statistics)

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

This article merits deletion because of:

Lack of Notability: This article neither asserts any notability nor there is any significant coverage on this subject in reliable sources.

1. The article itself claims no notability.
2. Searches conducted in Google Scholar, Google Books and Google News came up with only trivial coverages in form of passing mentions is sentences like "... in test that I conducted in MediaCoder..." or "...such as MediaCoder which supports CUDA..."
3. PC World Download does feature this product but no user has ever reviewed this product. Only a handful of users have rated it. No PC World Editor has reviewed this product.
4. CNET Download does feature this product but No CNET Editor has reviewed this product. Very few users have ever rated it.

Lack of reliable secondary sources: This artice does not cite any source except for a handful of insignificant instances.

Serious advertisement role: This article is written like an advertisement. It's primary contributor is Stanleyhuang (talk · contribs), the application developer, who has only contributed to this article and sees fit to dismiss the fact that this article is an Adware and instead write "MediaCoder is a freeware [~snip~] MediaCoder is free of charge and is supported by bundling OpenCandy software recommendation service in its installer." (Also see Serious statements from the author of MediaCoder) Fleet Command (talk) 23:18, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:46, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per nom. Handschuh-^{talk to me} 07:32, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. This book has about a page and a half on it, although it's in Polish. Pcap ping 10:30, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Per the above source and two pages in This O'Reilly Japan book, and this this German book discusses it on two pages together with another (similar?) program called Super from eRightSoft. All of this does not amount to trivial coverage for a program of this kind. The nomination appears to be a case of "it's not popular with English speakers, so delete". Even if you don't grok those languages at all, you can tell it's the same program based on the screenshots. As for English user reviews, I had no trouble finding some of those too, and there are about 45 comments on the portal site for this kind of software (alexa rank). There's a web world wide outside CNnet... And the issue you take with the license, which can be fixed by editing, appears to be a case of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Found discussion of the adware issue too. Pcap ping 10:49, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wikipedia verifiability policy demands that "Articles should be based upon reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." I'm afraid you have found no single well-established authority which has commented on MediaCoder. What you've found is either blogs and forum posts or otherwise books that only lightly touch the matter. Note that SUPER, which you mentioned, also had an article in Wikipedia which is now deleted. Fleet Command (talk) 12:26, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • And by the way, what I mentioned is an issue of advertisement not license.Wikipedia is not an advertisement platform. Fleet Command (talk) 12:26, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • O'Reilly Media is not a reliable source for computing material? Pcap ping 13:43, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]