Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/MediaINFO

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 Delete both. The articles do not seems to contain reliable third party sources. Ruslik_Zero 17:51, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

MediaINFO

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

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

Also nominating Geneza.

No gnews hits, looks like spam by an SPA. Only external ref appears to be a quite brief mention of the company existing. OSborn^arf_contribs. 01:22, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- OSborn^arf_contribs. 01:25, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- OSborn^arf_contribs. 01:25, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The MediaINFO software is new, it is installed primarily in europe and as the process of public procurement is fairly "offline" in europe there isn't yet a big number of citeable material online, neither are there dedicated websites referring to such niches, because well it is a niche. To make things worse the citeable resources are usually in languages such as French or Czech which seems to make these citations less "valid" although it shouldn't really.

I understand that Wikipedia's volunteer editors are busy people and are bombarded with things they need to do, however speed also makes for mistakenly discarding useful material. It also creates a culture of topics that are disproportionally over-represented such as branded shrink-wrapped software from the likes of Microsoft. The unfortunate truth is that the burden of proof for a small outfit that produces educational software used by educational institutions and universities now is discarded while terrible and long abandoned software running on operating systems nobody is using anymore have pride of place on wikipedia e.g. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fine_Artist Whereas current and relevant content for now and the future is deleted! Many other articles do not have to meet such an exacting standard.. We need a break here, this is a legitimate entry for a serious outfit that works primarily for public sector organisations in europe and soon in the USA too. There is nothing garish or pushy about the entry. We have added some citations we will add some more, please read them, unfortunately they are not in english but this is software for the public sector in europe within a niche, it is difficult to have a huge number of mentions about it in the press. Wikipedia has a huge amount of detail about the most moronic games on facebook but no information on educational software national libraries use?? this is simply wrong.

I don't believe this article deserves deletion, it dispassionately describes what this software does for public libraries in europe. There seems to be a big bias for US-based software corporations on wikipedia, deleting small vendors from the listing will lead to a self-congratulatory monoculture of US software on wikipedia. Idarodes (talk) 13:15, 11 March 2011 (UTC) — comment added by Idarodes (talk • contribs) 09:06, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete both. MediaINFO says it is a web publishing software for digitized content. In other words, a webpage design or "content management" utility. Geneza is a privately held software vendor specialising in software solutions for Libraries and Publishers, the maker of MediaINFO. I'm afraid you get penalized -50 notability points for "software solutions".

The question is whether this particular product has any particular claim to significant effects on history, culture, and technology; and this article makes no claim for that kind of significance. As such it is just one of many such packages, with no particular claim to groundbreaking significance.

Perceptions of bias are largely in the eyes of the beholder. Now, moronic Facebook games have become cultural touchstones, symbols of the online culture of Facebook, and as such significance is easily shown. When people 100 years from now ask what online life was like in the early 21st century, the topic of Farmville probably will come up. I don't see a US-centric bias in software articles; what I see instead is an ocean of trivial tech-cruft, much of it obvious spam, where every bit player thinks that mention in a Top 100 list or a petty trade award confers historic significance. There also is a large and obvious bias in favor of minor open-source and free software projects. There are altogether too many articles on bit players in crowded software fields. And this software looks very niche, and it does the same thing that many other software packages do. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 15:24, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Wikipedia is not for self-promotion, and this is clearly self promotion. It's new software, so let time tell whether it becomes significant sufficient (like it's competitor CONTENTdm has) for a Wikipedia article. If it does, I suspect the software promoters here will have plenty of citations to choose from. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Flippingtires (talk • contribs) 20:32, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

First of all both entries above have not addressed the point that this niche software for mostly the public/academic sector, these institutions do not issue press releases by marketing which then becomes very quotable, neither is it in the hire-a-journalist-by-the-article as it happens with outfits owned by gawker media et al, the endgadgets etc of this world that are basically a legitimisation source for payment and which seems to be enough to have even vapourware listed on wikipedia. Many articles on wikipedia reference these "news" sites and blogs that are essentially recycling press releases.

The above is a convoluted defence of an originally rushed decision for deletion. The farmville argument of cultural value is enough to give me goosebumps, a democratic triumph of the lowest possible denominator! This logic reminds me of the highly recommended film Idiocracy and it actually is a defence of the popular no matter how retarded.

MediaINFO is created by academics for academics and has not hired some marketing company to get "news" items created so they can be cited... I think that if Jimmy Wales saw this application of the rules he would think this decision is missing the whole spirit of what wikipedia is trying to achieve, a diverse voice in the entries, not another regurgitation of the products of corporate america. I have no problem with the over-representation of open-source software, we use only open-source software simply because it is better software ourselves. I do have a problem when this turns into a religious-like jihad against perceived bit-players.

The argument of non inclusion of "bit players" seems to me on unsafe ground considering the triviality and overt commercialism of other entries. Essentially you guys are ending up counting famousness of software as a key requirement for inclusion, which is also very conveniently easy. It makes the commercial software entries read like the price catalogue of a provincial computer shop! Plenty of Norton Antivirus 360 and other bloatware needing a mainframe to run, and relative poverty on the fields of software where the innovation is happening. By this logic a resounding yes to Paris Hilton and deletion for einstein before he was famous.. In the end a rule can only take you so far, you have to exercise judgement in editing content, running a quick gnews query is not judgement guys sorry it is just lazy. The rest is defensive acrobatics of the indefensible.

The other thing is that i am really confused on what to include now because you seem to be taking everything the wrong way, on the one hand i have to prove the uniqueness, but to do that i have to input some information to prove that which i fear will lead to more chants of deletion.. The whole thing is reminding me of the witch scene from Monty Python's witch scene http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zrzMhU_4m-g If you guys never to listen to an argument why the torment? In an attempt to show the uniqueness of the software please note that the software is not a web publishing solution in the conventional sense, in fact it does not have a direct competitor as software that attempts to sort of do similar things is not really match the scalability, speed, cost, ease, simplicity by such a wide margin it is like comparing a kite with a fighter jet...

see this http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fBIVnlDX1VE&feature=relmfu this shows only the interface which is the first that makes it possible to use a library for a kid or a senior citizen.

Technical innovation abounds, support for advanced ways to eliminate file sizes without loss of quality which is very important when handling everything from ancient manuscripts to former communist magazines and books. The software uses the most advanced features of JPEG2000 which leads to impressive savings in storage that in the end makes it possible for libraries to use content that they digitised but find prohibitively expensive to deploy onto the web. None of our competitors can match that in the forseeable future and the Wellcome Foundation, a well known charitable institution invited people from MediaINFO for this exact reason to give lectures on how JPEG2000 can make projects that were not affordable in the past viable now..

Further references of the groundbreaking work from the Wellcome Trust website

http://jpeg2000wellcomelibrary.blogspot.com/2010/11/jpeg-2000-seminar-edited-highlights-2.html This event was hosted by the JPEG 2000 Implementation Working Group and the Wellcome Library with assistance from the DPC. at the Wellcome Trust, 215 Euston Road London, UK.

Deleting this entry is a bad decision that is increasingly ideological and it seems that the less informed the Wikipedia editors are the more fiery and certain they are becoming. That is simply illogical! Please step back, look at this on it's merits and without prejudice. Focus in particular on the weakness of the argument with which the article was tarred in the first place. Idarodes (talk) 20:54, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If no one is talking about the article, how can we ever know that what it says is true? Verifiablility requires reliable sources. This does, in part, protect MediaINFO/Geneza from slander. Your comment does not address how either article meets the GNG here on Wikipedia. Whether you/I/anyone like it or not, that is the current standard for inclusion. Most of the references you have provided are only bit mentions that some person is associated with Geneza/giving a talk, etc. OSborn^arf_contribs. 22:46, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It is interesting to see how publicly accessible installations of this software at various customers isn't enough to show its verifiability. I would say that thousands of users of resources that are made available through Mediainfo could say something about its importance to them and the impact of sharing knowledge, accessibility of information and so on... If even national library recognizes the importance of this, I don't see why is this discussion even taking place? Comments from people who haven't even took the time to study the topic and are already commenting for deletion are scary to say the least. If wikipedia is going to allow to be edited and curated by people who won't take at least few minutes for learning about article topic, then this is a major blow to the whole idea of WIKI project. At least get some experts on the field of digitization for libraries/publishers instead trigger-happy mass that cannot recognize the importance of entry of this software for libraries who are discovering these tools. If wikipedia will become the place where you can find information only after long years of usage of systems (when thousands of references throughout internet can be found), then how is wiki different from old printed encyclopedias ? By the time you read from it, it is already outdated and belongs to Museum ... just like that game that you are mentioning above.

To sum-up, this software has verifiable independent 3rd-party reference (why else would academics organize seminars with it, and why would national library present its implementation if it is not genuine, innovative and of national importance?) TaradG (talk) 11:08, 16 March 2011 (UTC) — TaradG (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

It looks like Geneza guys are facing good old inquisition, the Monty Python's witch hunt scene is the ubercool example. Citation from Wikipedia:Verifiability: "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth; that is, whether readers can check that material in Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether editors think it is true." So, what proof would you like from these guys? Couple of articles about their software on CNN maybe? If they provided you sample of their product, links to their clients websites where clients say they are using mediainfo for their digital archives (and we are talking about libraries, universities, publishers), the link to article where you can find they have been invited to a workshop focused about something closely related to libraries digitization process... So readers can check their material on the web of their clients, and trusts that are inviting them to participate on their workshops as presenters, and that sources are reliable.

"Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit." - hardly — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vilimm (talk • contribs) 14:23, 17 March 2011 (UTC) — Vilimm (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Software's notability is not determined by how many installations it has- it's by whether is has "... received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". (WP:GNG) It needs more than simply a mention that XYZ uses ABC. Are there papers written on this subject? Where are they published? Are there books? Where? Reviews by reliable, external parties? OSborn^arf_contribs. 14:30, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not yet notable-- that's the only real conclusion. Perhaps it will be. There are a fair number of publications reviewing library and publishing software, and when it is sufficiently written about, it may well be notable; it sounds interesting, so it's certainly possible. Vilimm, you have two major misunderstandings here: The first, is that we are an encyclopedia of what ought to be notable—rather, we are an encyclopedia of what things are already notable. We are indeed an encyclopedia to which anyone can contribute, but not an encyclopedia where one can contribute anything. The second, is that one can get things done here by bluster. Of all the places for discussion I've ever seen, this is one of the most unlikely to be impressed by such methods. Trying to have written two articles was an error--an error rather common in people trying to promote something new. Trying to protest too much when its clear that it doesn't meet the local standards is not helpful. Saying we ought not have the standards we do is also not all that helpful, especially when its one of our really basic standards. Assuming for the moment you are doing publicity for them, this is not a good way to do it. DGG ( talk ) 03:05, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP IT! For my part i am heartened that finally some people see my point of view, in the end of the day Wikipedia has its house rules i understand that, but i don't like to be accused as a spammer because i have never spammed anyone and if this article is deleted i will be regarded as such and the nuances of all this will not be taken into account. The article cannot be recreated even if in the next years the article starts meeting your rules.. I submitted this entry because i am a geek and proud of it and because wikipedia is a place i expect to find complete information in..

The rules as applied in this particular category make Wikipedia promote large vendors like Microsoft and give extreme attention to every announcement of vapourware or software that simply doesn't work properly and is beta tested on the unsuspecting public. You guys even include badware such as realplayer whose corporate parent is the only reason why it is not regarded as malware/adware http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RealPlayer and wikipedia gives it a huge page only mentioning that realplayer is as fun to have installed as a virus.

The fact is that if the largest corporations were to write the rules of inclusion in the commercial software category of wikipedia they would have come up with the ones used in seeking to delete MediaINFO.. it suits them fine because they help keep the public unaware of alternatives to their mostly rubbish software and entrench the dominance of this monoculture.

For a digital encyclopaedia wikipedia seems to suffer many of the faults of paper encyclopedias in that they were more museums of information. But they had an excuse, they were on paper and were bought once in a lifetime! Plus in the end they exercised judgement, they didn't try to become a human algorithm interpreter.

Now you can find out all about the software Pong from 1972 -from the era of the soviet union was still flying high http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pong - and mind-numbing detail about whether or not Sears stocked it or not and what konami thought, but anything useful about what is going on now in the fast moving world of software is restricted to mostly the world of big franchises and mega corporations in the USA and their press releases disguised as developments or changes.

How much swiss software is included here? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Software_companies_of_Switzerland It is almost non-existent, and i still don't see how Geneza is less notable than many of these just look at this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SVOX The more you look at this the rule seems to be you get included if you have offices in the USA.. If you have these rules their application seems to be selective and biased..

Idarodes (talk) 23:49, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep it How can you say a list of facts is self promotion? And accuse me to make publicity for these guys because i say what i think? I just don't like big guys always pick on the little guys, even if they have no reason to do that, even if it's just for fun. Nobody said that you should not have standards. But your standards are not working for me as an Wikipedia end user. Because you want to delete something that exists for a fact. That is not "encyclopedia". If anyone wants to promote anything, there are millions of places to do that and Wikipedia is not one of them. They are just fighting for their basic rights, and they should have the same rights as the Miracle Mike there. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vilimm (talk • contribs) 09:03, 21 March 2011 (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.