Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ProCoder
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This is the current revision of this page, as edited by MalnadachBot (talk | contribs) at 07:32, 16 March 2022 (Fixed Lint errors. (Task 12)). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this version.Revision as of 07:32, 16 March 2022 by MalnadachBot (talk | contribs) (Fixed Lint errors. (Task 12))
(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
- 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 keep. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 22:33, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- ProCoder (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)
Not notable, absolutely no detailed information about the product, total advertisement. You judge! Parvazbato59 (talk) 04:38, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Article is the barest of stubs, but not misleading, and the product is clearly notable, as shown by numerous independent reviews at high-quality sites. I added a couple of them to the article as references. Looie496 (talk) 19:14, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - The article is described by the nominator as a "total advertisement". I contest the claim. The entire article as of 10 March 2009 (before it was nominated for deletion) consists of one sentence, which says, "ProCoder is a video encoding and transcoding software manufactured by Thomson Grassvalley." How is that advertising? Have we forgotten what advertising looks like? Let me rewrite the sentence in marketspeak: "ProCoder is the premier video encoding and transcoding solution from Thomson Grassvalley, the world leader in digital content creation solutions." Now compare the two. Does the article still look like a "total advertisement"? On notability, the two reviews provided by Looie496 are sufficient, I believe. Rilak (talk) 04:43, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 16:36, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 19:25, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Well-known software, quite popular in its market niche, and (I'm led to believe) used by the majority of professional digital video producers. JulesH (talk) 20:45, 18 April 2009 (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.