Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Combined Community Codec Pack


 * 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. LOL, I personally think this qualifies for WP:UA. - Mailer Diablo 05:56, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Combined Community Codec Pack
This article is about a collection of codecs used by some people in the fansub community. There is, to my knowledge, no information published about it in reliable sources, so the entire article is original research; this is emphasized by the absence of citations or footnotes. The article is also fairly POV in places, with such claims as "According to the feedback received and general observation, it can be reasonably inferred that it is fulfilling its purpose. The affiliated groups receive less playback-related issues and the CCCP is capable of playing back most video media while installing and consuming only a minimal amount of resources" (again, unsourced).

Essentially, CCCP is just a collection of slightly modified, already extant software, so I don't really see any place else for it to be mentioned or for the article to be merged into. There is no real verifiable information to include anywhere else, except potentially that a collection of software named "CCCP" exists.

It seems apparent to me, especially from the lack of even a single edit to the Talk page, and the inclusion of notes about installing the software, that the article is basically being used as a guide to CCCP. Since Wikipedia is not a guide, and the article has no encyclopedic information, I propose that this article be deleted.

-- Slowking Man 17:17, 13 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom, this doesn't appear to be very verifiable, or sufficiently notable - Stephanie Daugherty (Triona) - Talk - Comment - 17:25, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. The CCCP is a very widely used codec pack.  Real Alternative and Quicktime Alternative were similar codec packs nominated for deletion and kept, as they are just as notable.  AfD is not where you ask to get articles cleaned up: the CCCP is quite clearly notable, and just because the article contains unsourced POV doesn't mean it should be deleted.  If there is unsourced information, delete it!  Be bold!  Don't delete an article to solve problem's with its content. &mdash;   Da rk Sh ik ar i   talk /contribs  18:22, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Additional comment. The article is most definitely not being used as a "guide for CCCP," as the CCCP has its own, drastically more detailed wiki with a hundred times more information.  The article should simply be an overview of what the CCCP is, not a replacement for the CCCP wiki. &mdash;   Da rk Sh ik ar i   talk /contribs  18:24, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Can you provide a reliable source that supports your assertion that "CCCP is a very widely used codec pack"? Also, the fact that a wiki exists for CCCP doesn't mean the article is not being used in the fashion of a guide. I agree that "[the] article should simply be an overview of what the CCCP is," but it seems to me it's not, in its current state. --Slowking Man 18:52, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
 * You're right, in many ways it is not. That does not mean it should be deleted though.  The most important information that should be on the page is:
 * What the codec pack supports.
 * Why the codec pack exists. For example one could state (and use the project page itself as a source here) that the codec pack was created to standardize playback of video files, so that instead of having to deal with different playback setups on every computer, one could simply install this one pack and be sure it would work with all video designed to work under the pack. &mdash;   Da rk Sh ik ar i   talk /contribs  18:55, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Free-Codecs and BetaNews, two of the unofficial distributors of the pack, have their combined number of downloads of the newest version exceeding 65,000. --Kamasutra 20:56, 13 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep. In spite of its name it is not a "codec pack" but a playback solution used by numerous groups involved in movie encoding. It is the recommended playback solution by the Matroska team and by tens of release groups in the Anime community, and used by tens, perhaps hundreds, of thousands of users. As the current encoding and playback standard as well as being the standard playback solution for Matroska playback, it does deserve its place. The article documents a widespread standard playback solution. As such, deletion would be wrong wrong, and if anything needs to be done about the article it should be edited instead. Mikademus 18:47, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
 * As above, can you provide reliable sources that support your assertions? --Slowking Man 18:52, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
 * A 10 second google news search got me this. &mdash;  Da rk Sh ik ar i   talk /contribs  18:53, 13 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Doesn't that it is the recommended playback solution of Matroska, the developers of the .MKV media container format, strike you as "significant" enough? Mikademus 07:15, 14 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Abstain for now. I'm curious as to what constitutes a reliable source. It's rare for free software to be reviewed by "reliable" third parties because the purpose of such reviews is to help the consumer make an informed decision with their money. Numerous software articles on Wikipedia do not cite sources other than their homepage. If the homepage is not considered reliable then these other software articles should be deleted as well, or other sources should be found. (e.g. the integral component of CCCP, ffdshow). POV is not a legitimate reason to delete in my opinion, because it is something that can be fixed. The only reason I can see to delete this article is if the sources from which the article is composed are deemed unreliable, hence making it hopeless to reform. --Kamasutra 20:56, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep Quite notable, recommend by many fansub groups and AnimeSuki. Doesn't appear to violate WP:V, WP:NOR, or WP:NOR. The only real problem I see is that it is base entirely on primary sources and needs secondary sources to balance it. It could also include information on its affects on the fansubbing community and what criticism it has received, if any. But those alone aren't enough to delete this article. --TheFarix (Talk) 21:22, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Addendum One of the reasons I missed in the original rational is that the article is a manual or guide. But I don't see how this can be interpreted as such. The page doesn't give any instructions on how to download, install, configure, or use the software. What it does is introduce the subject, give a brief history, explain why it was created, and gives a list of features and what other components make up the pack. None of which constitutes a guide. --TheFarix (Talk) 11:48, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep This is a fairly notable codec pack. Maybe the article needs to be wikified more, but not deleted. Hobbeslover talk/contribs 22:15, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep - strikes me as notable. I don't even use it (or windows), but I'm aware of it and I see the justification for the claims that it's better than most other codec packs. I'm not the one to fix this article, but I strongly suspect it can be brought in compliance with WP:NPOV etc. My Alt Account 04:16, 14 September 2006 (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.