Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/AviSynth


 * 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. No arguments for deletion aside from the original prodder. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:27, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

AviSynth

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Completing the nomination on behalf of 207.81.170.99. Originally they placed a prod with the deletion rationale "not notable according to Noelle pozzi" which was removed with the defense WP:NOTPAPER, the IP then initiated an AfD without rationale. So the concern here is likely WP:N. Pgallert (talk) 07:49, 27 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep A very specialist type of software. It's very hard to establish notability for software. For a suite of apps like Office, its very easy as its almost universally used. For this type hard. I could create an article about a software product which has only sold 14 copies. Now is that notable. If I told you that sofware runs every electricity utility in the UK. Would that make it notable. The question here, there are only so many of these types of sofware available. There is perhaps less 50 examples of AV stream software. Much less so, when you consider its a product licensed under the GPL. I say keep it. I think the article may be at WP:LENGH and may need trimmed. scope_creep (talk) 21:11, 27 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete it I tried to earlier and my nomination failed so this is the way to do it nobody cares about this and in an earlier deletion discussion this was raised as an example and so I took that to mean it should be deleted like the other one was. 207.81.170.99 (talk) 20:17, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
 * This vote should not be taken into account, because the nomination is already completed "on behalf of 207.81.170.99", who nominated the article for deletion, and already explained why. People who nominate the article for deletion explain their reasoning in the nomination (and BTW, "not notable according to Noelle pozzi" is a bogus reason), and do not vote in the discussion, which would give them two votes.&mdash;J. M. (talk) 23:19, 27 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep. Avisynth is a very well known video processing program, and covered enough in online (e.g. 1, 2, 3) and paper (e.g. 1, 2, 3) sources to make it notable.&mdash;J. M. (talk) 23:19, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:51, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep I wish the serial deletionists would look at both GBooks and GScholar before proposing AfD. It would avoid all this time wasted. I have looked at all the items in list of Software-related deletion discussions for the last few days and I've seen four times that articles are nominated for AfD where it appears to me that no GBooks and GScholar searches were attempted or the searches were discounted in order to justify a pre-existing bias to delete. I'm not a wikilawyer so I won't attempt to quote all the acronyms. However, I think that these four examples show a rush to judgment on the part of the nominators. &mdash; Respectfully, HowardBGolden (talk) 02:11, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Strong keep. Consider particularly important software for many video-related tasks under Windows. Not sure what sources to quote (the best sources for this particular niche are all, unfortunately, not reliable sources per wikipedia's definition... doom9's forum springs to mind), but a google book search turns up several books that appear to discuss it.  I'm sure more sources can be found if someone is willing to spend the time to go through the thousands of google results that appear on a search for the software's name. JulesH (talk) 20:34, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
 * The online sources I mentioned are all reliable sources per Wikipedia's definition. The first source is a featured article at AfterDawn.com, which is a standard secondary source. The second one is an article written by Jake Ludington, who is a recognized expert in the field of digital media (he has been cited by PCWorld, for example), and the third one is not a Doom9 forum, but a featured article at Doom9's site (the same thing applies here, too&mdash;Doom9 is a widely recognized expert in the field of digital video, for example his annual codec tests have been cited in many places, including Wikipedia), so they both satisfy the condition mentioned in the Self-published sources (online and paper) section: "Self-published material may, in some circumstances, be acceptable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications." Plus all three sources are just examples, there are other sources on the web, too.&mdash;J. M. (talk) 21:06, 28 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep per, , . And that's just the first two pages of GNews hits (winks to Howard) . --  Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 00:57, 30 August 2010 (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.