Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Amiga Media Center


 * 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. postdlf (talk) 18:19, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Amiga Media Center

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Contested: Lack of reliable sources

Defence: Software described in the article is very new and has not received so much reviews by indipendent reliable sources. However it is a stub and I am updating this one and several various articles at same time on regular basis. I regularly marked it as "stub" as long as it is still worked on.

Also for Defence: It is the first product of Media Center Software ever released for AmigaOS-like Operating Systems, so it deserves de-facto an article on Wikipedia.

Also for Defence: AMC is a commercial product and it could be regularly purchased (as stated in the article talk, by Mr. Pascal Papara, maintaner and developer of AROS Broadway distro, the OS for which AMC was first released to. (A software product currently on the market is a fact enough reliable).

Also as Major Defence: I found first reliable external source: Amiga Future german magazine (bi-lingual and published in Germany for english and deutsch language readers) published a first review of Amiga Media Center software in its issue 88 (Jan/Feb 2011) published last january 2011. it is a well known newspaper magazine for Amiga users and it is indipendent from the developers of Amiga Media Center and the developers of AROS Operating System Browadway distro where AMC was first released for.

All defence issues are also present in the Amiga Media Center talk page, where it contributed also Mr. Pascal Papara the developer of AROS Broadway distro.

Sincerely Raffaele Megabyte (talk) 13:44, 30 March 2011 (UTC)__

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:18, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment This AfD is apparently a contest of a PROD placed on the article.    DGG ( talk ) 23:55, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Also Mr. Fabio Falcucci who created it is an "unknown" outside the Amiga community, but a well known developer into the Amiga little reality, continuing keeping alive this platform and granting its visibility worldwide with new products and up-to-date software as it happens in other platforms scene. He also created a library which grants organized GUI frontends for the software created with Hollywood (programming language) that was then adopted as part of it SCUILib and perhaps, it could means nothing, or it could means everything, but "Hollywood Programming Language" was new software also, but the article regarding it was accepted without problems here on wikipedia. So what is all this problems with Amiga Media Center that was created using Hollywood? Is it enough reliable as prior software for the Amiga platform to keep it as standalone existing article here in wikipedia? Or [alternative] could it be another solution merging AMC into "Hollywood programming language" article, until AMC will be enough reliable to deserve various reviews by computer magazines (online and paper made) that will grant it as existing and notable software?
 * Delete It is a new package, by an unknown, with no history, that hasn't been covered by RS. I don't mind it being thin on info at this point, but it almost borders on speedy as it doesn't even claim notability, only claiming it exists.  However, Prod was appropriate, and now delete is. Dennis Brown (talk) 01:54, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment Yes it is a new package AND MAINLY it is the first one of the category mediacenters for the Amiga platform. So its own existence grants its reliability.

Sincerely: Raffaele Megabyte (talk) 11:55, 31 March 2011 (UTC)__
 * comment To be perfectly clear, I am not saying that what he is doing isn't worthwhile. My opinion is only that what he is doing has yet to qualify under the Wikipedia guidelines as "notable".  What he is doing is interesting, to say the least, but that isn't a criteria for inclusion.  Dennis Brown (talk) 14:08, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
 * commentYes, but we are not discussing here about Mr. Fabio Falcucci who is just INCIDENTALLY the creator of this software (and I quoted his name in the article about AMC as a matter of precision). We are discussing if this software is enough noteworthy for a multimedia platform (Amiga) that in 25 years got for the first time its first omni-comprensive all-purpose Media Center Software, just as like Windows or Linux, and if this software is enough noteworthy to deserve an article of its own. The difference is that Windows requires an entire release of its own (Windows Media Center Edition), Linux requires a distro of its own to be shrinked into a set-top-box and including a series of scripts to drive its existing media software. While AMC is not an Operating System release patched by the manufacturers, neither is driving existing multimedia programs by scripts. It is a front end GUI software for mPlayer, and it is not just a compilation of Amiga scripts aimed at driving mPlayer software. AMC is a binary software of its own that gives mplayer a complete new configurable interface system. IMHO it is enough noteworthy. Raffaele Megabyte (talk) 22:11, 31 March 2011 (UTC)__
 * Raffaele, have you read WP:GNG? We're talking about Wikipedia's definition of notability, not the usage outside of Wikipedia. None of the guidelines have been met. Further, comparing to other articles isn't helpful, see WP:WAX. tedder (talk) 22:26, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:37, 31 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete. As I stated in my PROD, lacking reliable sources to establish notability, see also Notability (software). Being sold or being used or being in existence does not prove notability per Wikipedia's standards. tedder (talk) 22:26, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment I beg your pardon, but the fact AMC is 1) being in existence, 2) usable and 3) sold into the market are just some of AMC notabilities. The important notability facts for AMC are enlisted in my comment at hour 22.11. Here I repeat it, and point it one by one for your benefit:


 * A) AMC is not an operating system patched to be multimedia center. B) it is not a collection of scripts. C) (Point 1) It is a frontend for mPlayer, but it also (Point 2) loads and runs games (mPlayer doesn't runs games), (Point 3) it plays movies, but it is also capable to collect it (Point 4) in a database available to the user. It is enough noteworthy into the history of Amiga computer (Point 5) as a new kind of software and (Point 6) alignes this platform to the others present into the market now in 2011.


 * Also my article contains: 1) A short overview, complete of a brief history and characteristics of the software and its features 2) An assertion of notability (it was reviewed by an indipendent Amiga Magazine) 3) A software infobox with information on version number, developer, etc. as in any existing software article here on wikipedia, and you must admit there are some articles of software for other platforms that are less organized than mine and lesser significant for their platform of reference (Windows, Linux), but still are present UNTOUCHED in this wiki because none asks for their deletion. Raffaele Megabyte (talk) 22:41, 31 March 2011 (UTC)__


 * Yes, untouched articles do exist because they aren't always "asked for deletion". Articles should be proper, but it's a moving target. I'm avoiding responding to your points because they indicate a lack of reading WP:GNG, WP:N, WP:NSOFT. Please couch your argument in those terms. tedder (talk) 23:08, 31 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete per nomination. Generally, articles on software, like any other commercial products, need to show that they have some kind of encyclopedic significance; that they've had significant effects on history, culture, or the field, of a kind that makes for long term historical notability.  It does not look like this product is cutting any new ground; the fact that it exists, is for sale, and runs on a niche system is not enough to give it that kind of significance. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 20:47, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment Yes, Amiga is nowadays a niche system, but it made the history of multimedia computing. It is strange in all these years it never gained an omnicomprensive multi-purpose media center, but in 2011 Amiga got it with AMC. It could not means anything for those who know nothing about Amiga, but it is a milestone in a computing history full of notability that longs for 25 years and still goes forward. Wikipedia is not like a paper encyclopedia that keeps just the info that are stored in that surface constrained by the physical surface of the paper. Wikipedia is an online encylopedia that requires no space, and it could being updated anytime by following the timeline progress of any topic of sufficient historic relevance, and perhaps Amiga is a relevant topic of history of computing. That's just the fact regarding AMC and its platform of reference. Raffaele Megabyte (talk) 04:13, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
 * 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.