Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ProCoder

ProCoder

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]