Talk:Blu-ray player software

Merging
This article needs merging with the far more technically proficient content at Blu-ray Pol430   talk to me  18:04, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Don't you think the Blu-ray Disc Page is long enough? Blu-ray Player software entry is quite hot, it is better not merging with others. It needs more content, please help enrich the entry. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Emma.show (talk • contribs) 02:41, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

linux
And what's with linux?--Baruch ben Alexander - ☠☢☣ 20:32, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Advertising
This article is clearly advertising for one-blue software, created by a single author, User:Emma.show who has only significantly contributed to this single article. It does not provide any new or unique information which is not available elsewhere, such as Blu-ray. Recommended for speedy deletion. DoC352 (talk) 06:36, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
 * And the title is a blatant obvious alternative name for that section. The title is plausible enough, and a likely search, so I redirected it to the page and section you mentioned. We don't need to waste an admin's time on this, and this is a title that users are highly likely to search for, so it shouldn't be a red link. Ego White Tray (talk) 13:39, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
 * 3O: I agree with you both on the advertising front, but its not G11 material. I've not gone though the article particularly thoroughly, but if even some of the author's claims are true, then the subject appears to be independently notable. I suggest a bold re-write or, if you think the article's notability is in doubt, then an AfD nomination would be better than a PROD – which would likely be contested but the author. The author has not responded constructively to any of the concerns raised about the article.  Pol430   talk to me  10:49, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

I've restored the redirect I had in place before. The software section in the Blu-Ray article is much better written, and this page doesn't seem to have any unique content. Besides, if this is to exist as a separate article, its content needs to be reconciled with the section there, and not merely a duplicate. I do think the main author is paying attention to these comments, since the text is much less promotional and much more general than it was several months ago. Ego White Tray (talk) 12:21, 1 May 2013 (UTC)