Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Audio Video Standard


 * 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 keep. Doczilla @SUPERHEROLOGIST 03:14, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

Audio Video Standard

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

I have serious concerns about WP:GNG here. Nothing in the text suggests this is notable; my BEFORE revealed only a few conference papers using this term, something like 4, with 2 written by the same group of authors. This is not a hoax, but it doesn't appear to be a notable concept. Chinese wiki article is of no help, being shorter and sporting just a single footnote. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 14:24, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Computing and China. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here  14:24, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Weak keep. Agreed that the "standard" has a grandiose title, given that it seems like a niche of usage in China. However, the effort has lasted quite some time, and appears to have a bit of a revival with on-line 8K formats. Article of course needs work to reduce dated promotion. We do need more coverage of non-USA topics in the technical Wikipedia articles, although they need the same notability requirements of course. The downside of something Chinese and so old is that online sources might be hard to find. There are a few IEEE standards documents, which we should update the article to reference. W Nowicki (talk) 18:46, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Also ran across the fact that there was an article on a reported implementation of this standard, OpenAVS, which was deleted in 2011: Articles for deletion/OpenAVS while the OpenAVS web site seems to have gone defunct in 2019 without being archived? W Nowicki (talk) 23:58, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Added a few more sources and started to remove the promotion and dated language. Could do more if the consensus is not to delete. W Nowicki (talk) 22:55, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
 * @W Nowicki Can you tell us what makes you think this meets WP:GNG/WP:NSOFT? Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 09:50, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
 * The standards family is more notable than just the software that implements it. The standards documents are books in several parts and editions, each entirely dedicated to some part of the standards family. The group has many articles in the Chinese trade press, although I do not speak Chinese, that should not rule them out as contributing to notability. I have added a couple books that mention the efforts too. More could be added, but do not want to spend time unless the consensus is to keep, at least for now. It appears the group is still around, albeit publishing at a slower pace. W Nowicki (talk) 18:17, 17 June 2022 (UTC)


 * Keep It's a 2006 Chinese standard and an 2018 IEEE standard  that is in its third generation in 2021  demonstrating impact across time and multiple standards bodies. There are secondary articles describing the standards and their implementation such as  and  (dubious publisher, but it looks like a reasonable article) and IP, such as . W. Nowicki has also improved the article with other reliable sources. It looks enough sourcing to pass GNG and support a modest article. NSOFT doesn't apply, as these are media encoding design standards, not a piece of software. I am also sensitive to systemic bias in the press against non-Western encoding technologies such as this. There are Chinese sources that I cannot read or evaluate as RS. But at least some may provide additional sourcing. --  13:28, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep. Seems to pass WP:SUSTAINED and WP:GNG per Mark viking.4meter4 (talk) 02:58, 21 June 2022 (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.