Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/MediaCoder

MediaCoder

(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.

The article itself claims no notability.
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..."
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.
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]
Strong 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]
  - And WSiP (pl:WSiP) is considered the "Poland's top textbook publisher" according to Reuters. Pcap ping 09:41, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - You have not introduced a source from this publisher. Fleet Command (talk) 08:56, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      - Yeah? Pcap ping 09:37, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - More sources: [1] a Pearson Education book, [2] a tutorial in the netzwelt.de online magazine, which is a top 100 German site alexa entry, used a fair bit on the de.wiki -- at the bottom of their main page, they claim 1,57 million unique visitors per month. Pcap ping 10:47, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Strong reason: [3] It won the March 2009 round-up in Chip.de, an online mag in top 20 sites in Germany (alexa ranking). Pcap ping 15:24, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - Objection: Your strong reason has one big problem: It compares MediaCoder with SUPER (whose article is deleted but you restored it) and XMediaRecode, all of which are equally non-notable.
    - You really need to stop bludgeoning, Pcap. Your sources all have at least one of the following problems:
      1. Obscure (45 user reviews is too little for reputation)
      2. Only touch the matter lightly (listing this software's name as converter is not enough)
      3. English speakers cannot verify
      Given the fact that English is considered the language of international communications, I expect you yo bring an example of a review from a notable source like PC Magazine, eWeek, PC World, Byte, etc. or an English book from a credible writer or from a credible publisher. Even an English blog post from a famous figure of computer world would suffice. Otherwise, you'll have to consider publishing this article in non-English Wikipedia. Fleet Command (talk) 08:15, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - And let us not forget: This article has long been written like an advertisement. That is enough for deleting it. Fleet Command (talk) 08:56, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      - Please drop this WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality. Providing sources is not "bludgeoning" anything but your cognitive dissonance. The other articles of this kind you deleted were restored exactly because their topics are notable. Pcap ping 09:29, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      - And learn some foreign languages, or use google translate if you're lazy but distrustful. Pcap ping 09:33, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      - If you insist on English sources, Martin Brinkmann's blog, ghacks.net is in the same ballpark with eWeek as far as audience goes [4] [5]. Pcap ping 09:52, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Looks like a decent article to me, I don't see what the bother is. Some of the writing is awkward but that's just a matter of WP:BETTER. Edward Vielmetti (talk) 02:48, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Thanks, Edward Vielmetti. Fleet Command (talk) 08:15, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]