Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Windows Media Encoder

Windows Media Encoder

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

Hi. This article is not notable as it does not supply evidence significant coverage in reliable secondary sources. Looks like a discontinued piece of Microsoft software that never took off. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 16:14, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Is notable:

as Microsoft software that was available and current at one time; still available for download;
Microsoft still makes patches available;
used by a significant number of users. See Google search for "Windows Media Encoder", about a million hits (first few pages are artificially promoted download sites, but plenty of users), plenty in last year. Random things by users: [1][2][3].

May need more text asserting notability - that could be discussed in article's Talk page - but shouldn't be deleted.

Pol098 (talk) 17:05, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. First and foremost, please stick to standard message formatting, so that others can contribute without disruption. As for the article, please see WP:GNG and WP:Search engine test. Your evidences are not valid to establish notability. To begin with relation to Microsoft does not automatically bring notability. Also, YouTube and GitHub are not even acceptable sources. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 07:26, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The article definitely needs to be improved, but significant coverage in reliable secondary sources does exist and thus the article has potential. A Google Books search returned multiple results that appear reliable, including a review published in PC Magazine. I would also note that this software appears to have been more popular about a decade ago than it is currently, so recommended places to look for additional sources with significant coverage are computer magazines and books from the late 90s / early 2000s. --Mike Agricola (talk) 18:15, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. This is called "passing coverage". Per WP:GNG, we need significant coverage. Please find sources that can actually be used in the article to verify its contents (although I know that you cannot; I tried.) Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 07:26, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The review linked by Mike is most certainly significant, not passing, coverage, as are many of the first few dozen of those Google Books results. Please don't imagine that your failure to find usable sources means that nobody else will be capable of doing so. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:28, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]