Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/SUPER (software)

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. The clear opinion here is that there are insufficient reliable sources to show notability. The argument that blogs can show notability for software may have merit, but this is not the place to determine that. Kevin (talk) 05:31, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

SUPER (software)

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

This non-notable, uncited article has had various tags placed on it for two years. PROD was removed by an IP address without addressing the issues. The software has minor mentions in publications from books.google, and scholar.google.com, but they mention the software being used, not articles directly significant discussion about the software. This article functions as promotion for the software. Wikipedia is not a software directory, proof of existence is not notable. Miami33139 (talk) 16:58, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I do hope the closing administrator will discount the "I used this software before and like it" and the SPA/COI votes. Miami33139 (talk) 02:20, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Agreed. It is obvious that this discussion, just like the article, is being spammed by someone from eRightSoft, under multiple anonymous IP addresses (see below). I would discount the spammers' votes, too.—J. M. (talk) 16:29, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Are you serious!!!!! do you really want to delete this page!! Why don't you delete the whole wikipedia then go and have a chilled beer!!

FFmpeg official website has listed SUPER as part of the FFmpeg-Based Projects: http://ffmpeg.org/projects.html

MEncoder official website has listed SUPER as related projects under Windows: http://www.mplayerhq.hu/design7/projects.html

Microsoft official website identifies SUPER as Vista compatible: http://www.microsoft.com/windows/compatibility/windows-vista/Search.aspx?type=Software&s=SUPER%20erightsoft

SUPER(C) is available for download from various sites:

Regarding the previous comment—the expression "as part of the FFmpeg-Based Projects" is slightly misleading, as it suggests that SUPER has "officially" something to do with the FFmpeg project. The fact is that SUPER simply uses components from FFmpeg and the FFmpeg website simply lists projects that use components from FFmpeg. That's all. The "If you would like to see another project added here, please send an email..." sentence explains that basically anyone who decides to use something from FFmpeg can send them an e-mail an they will list their project there. So it does not really say anything about notability whatsoever.

The same with the MPlayer website. Again, it simply lists projects that use their software in some way. If there is a new project that decides to use their software, they can list it there, too, whether it's notable or not.

As for the download links—for example the Mininova link. So someone put SUPER for download via BitTorrent. What exactly does it say about its notability?

And one more thing. The SUPER article has been constantly edited by anonymous users in exactly the same way. Someone put something less flattering about the product into the article, and then there was the anonymous IP address that removed it. And again, under a new anonymous IP address.

When the AfD template was put there, again, an anonymous user removed it (violating the Wikipedia deletion policies), when the template was restored, a new anonymous IP address removed it again... It always happens in the same hysterical fashion as shown above by 59.108.44.41. Which to me suggests that it could be a possible sock puppet who has an interest in having the SUPER article in Wikipedia (possibly the SUPER creator?)—J. M. (talk) 01:21, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Have you ever tried to send an e-mail to FFmpeg or MEncoder so they can list their your project?

Do you consider this as a serious argument/statement, Do you really under-estimate to this extend the process for adding a product to their list. It is like just send us an email and we'll add any software you want! come on..

besides, 59.108.44.41 did not "invent" the term [FFmpeg-Based Projects], it is in fact the title of their page on the left upper corner!

Have you seen this page, do like to talk about it? http://ffmpeg.org/shame.html

Finding links to notable products via BitTorrent does not constitute a prejudice to product itself!!

here's ONLY 4 examples amongst thousand others...

http://www.mininova.org/search/?search=microsoft+windows+Vista&cat=0

http://www.mininova.org/search/?search=microsoft+office&cat=0

http://www.mininova.org/search/?search=norton+antivirus&cat=0

http://www.mininova.org/search/?search=adobe%20photoshop

However if you really believe that SUPER creators are able to manage and put all these listed download links on various notable download sites, then they must have a real good reason to convince and are really proposing a good freeware otherwise it wouldn't be there.

As for this YouTube link http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=SUPER+erightsoft it shows the large number of happy users that are themselves happily promoting and sharing SUPER by pointing out its features through a video presentation.

What is notability? how do you evaluate it? based on which criteria? who decides? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.131.74.155 (talk) 07:49, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, I did not object to the term "FFmpeg-Based projects". I said the sentence was misleading and explained why. Secondly, I did not say the BitTorrent link meant SUPER is bad, I only said it was completely irrelevant. It does not say anything about the notability at all.

And thirdly, I suspect 213.131.74.155 is yet another sock puppet. The same writing style, the same mistakes, the same tone, unsigned anonymous comment, it is the same thing as the numerous other single-purpose IP addresses that only ever do a single (favourable, of course) edit to the SUPER article (or this discussion) and then disappear forever. And then a new single-purpose IP address appears that does exactly the same thing... And so on. So I believe that all these anonymous IP addresses come from someone related to the product, and they just keep using new and new anynomous IP addresses to make it look like there are more of them. Sock puppetting is strictly forbidden in Wikipedia and users can get blocked indefinitely for that. It only tends to confirm Miami33139's suspicion that the primary purpose of the article is advertising the product.—J. M. (talk) 08:23, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 02:09, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a bunch of similar candidates for AfD They are loaded with single-purpose IP addresses during editing same case as for SUPER, I think they all deserve to be eliminated, exterminated.

Delete. Could not find significant independent coverage, and none has been forthcoming. Quantpole (talk) 17:01, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Super has saved my ass many times (read: yes, I'm a bit biased), and IMHO the reason it's so hard to find references which mention it is because of the ultra generic name. Even CNET brands it as "SUPER Video Converter". The references are out there though, here, here and a video tutorial at associatedcontent which WP is not letting me link to :(. Unfortunately, yesh, I would say about 90% of the web mentions of the software appear on forums where people are asking questions on how to use it or suggesting it to other users; an underground hit if anything. Still, it is surely notable enough for an article, but it should definitely be trimmed for WP:listcruft. GreyWyvern (talk) 00:08, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The second link clearly fails to meet notability requirements, as it is a blog, and blogs are generally not reliable sources—the notability guideline says a topic has to recieve "significant coverage in reliable sources" to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article.—J. M. (talk) 00:50, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I second GreyWyvern is his opinion about Super. I believe that its current wikipedia page is clearly informative without any typical advertisement look. The page goes by listing the supported input and output formats and the internally used Command-Line encoders. It requires though slight trimming, but it definitely has its place on Wikipedia.

I started using Super since the earlier versions in 2005, the product is pretty much straight forward and easy to use yet extremely handy to encode multimedia files from one format to another. Searching erightsoft in Google or YouTube leads to hundreds of hits, Super by erightsoft won the third position in CHIP German Magazine on March 2009, please keep it! http://www.chip.de/artikel/Vergleichstest-Alleskonvertierer-8_35478393.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rasay rewelra babe (talk • contribs) 10:18, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- — Rasay rewelra babe (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
I would argue for keep. I thought there was a notability guideline for software, but I couldn't find one. Mahanga^Talk 01:43, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Without a specific notability guideline for software, this still fails general notability. Can you express how this meets the general notability requirement? Miami33139 (talk) 02:47, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Correct searching leading to relevant results is achieved when searching for "eRightSoft SUPER" instead of "SUPER (software)" in news, books, scholar, images.. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.228.27.4 (talk • contribs) 13:05, 12 November 2009
- — 201.228.27.4 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
- Using your search, I get 1 hit on google books, which leads to a book about Adobe Flash. I assume this software has some minor mention in that. I get three hits on google scholar, none of which seem to be about this software. No hits on google news. Can you please tell me show, directly, some good sources about this software? Miami33139 (talk) 16:18, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- And where exactly are those "relevant results"? Let me repeat the Wikipedia rules: "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article." Now, what we have here is people saying: "Keep, I like this product", or "Keep, there are relevant results", without showing those relevant results. Plus, yet another brand new anonymous single-purpose IP address appears to make yet another unsigned comment... One and the same person?—J. M. (talk) 16:23, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 00:18, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. What most of the "keep" !voters fail to grasp is that we do not judge notability by blog mentions or Google hit counts, we require non-trivial coverage from reliable third party publications. Anyone can publish a blog. JBsupreme (talk) 00:53, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
weak keep for this class of subject, perhaps blog mentions are the relevant criteria. They show widespread use, and that is one of tyhe ways in which something becomes significant enough that people would look for it in an encyclopedia DGG ( talk ) 01:21, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't think that "widespread use" is sufficient when the reliable sources criteria are so severely lacking. JBsupreme (talk) 01:39, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am aware that what I am proposing as a reason could be regarded as an exception to the notability criteria. DGG ( talk ) 23:11, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What is "this class of subject" and why should blog mentions be relevant? Software tools already get special treatment on Wikipedia because of systemic bias. I don't understand the rationale that a GUI wrapper for some command line tools has something inherently special about it. Miami33139 (talk) 19:30, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Jake Wartenberg 18:43, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:25, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete: This article fails Wikipedia General Notability Guideline as it has received no significant coverage from reliable independent sources. Fleet Command (talk) 18:03, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. If significant coverage in reliable sources hasn't been found yet, it's not going to be. Powers ^T 15:52, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails GNG. ukexpat (talk) 17:21, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; can't find notability, fails GNG. Haakon (talk) 18:31, 24 November 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.