Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/DVBViewer


 * 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 No Consensus: Although there is a clear concern over the stablished notability of the subject in discussion, it also lies far beyond the general notability criteria as being discussed by several third party sources, so no general consensus was reached. — ΛΧΣ  21™  15:59, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

DVBViewer

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  Stats )

Article fails WP:NOTABILITY, Article was re created by an WP:SPA advertising-only account with no other edits other than related to DVBViewer. Was speedied twice under PROD and once as G11. This is Part of a larger long term campaign to exploit wikipedia in order to promote DVBViewer. Nothing more than Self-promotion and product placement, which wikipedia is WP:NOT Hu12 (talk) 21:43, 10 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete: Don't know about the promotional part, but the software in question does not meet WP:NSOFT -- it's not notable. -- BenTels (talk) 00:02, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
 * • Gene93k (talk) 01:00, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Finally I'd recommend restoring a version of the article prior to it's initial deletion if this is possible (e.g. as of July 12 . It was informative while not beeing overly referenced with sources probably not that important for a reader who wants to inform himself about DVBViewer (as it is now after several in my opinion unjustified speedy deletion requests, accusing of promotional and unreferenced content). Patrick 1bc0 (talk) 01:18, 14 August 2012 (UTC) — Patrick 1bc0 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. 
 * Delete - unreferenced, no indication of notability for this software, created by an SPA as possible advert/spam. Dialectric (talk) 12:07, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment I'll probably go for delete but I'd like an explanation from the nominator for this edit. — Jeraphine Gryphon (talk) 12:36, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
 * WP:BOOKSPAMED, WP:COI addition of Non-notable manuals here (after being prodded by you), and subsequently expanded under his/her IP here to give the "appearance of notability" (and to delete the tags) by populating the article with WP:CITESPAM after you tagged the article with notability concerns here. At most merely trivial coverage and meaningless mentions by being included in lists of similar products, failing WP:CORPDEPTH miserably. Additionally, a whole paragraph of shop manuals does not lend itself to the subjects notability. --Hu12 (talk) 14:06, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete: my findings are not different from those of BenTels: nothing suggests notability per WP:GNG and/or WP:NSOFT. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 12:31, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep: I don't whether any of the voters has a PC with a TV card, but amongst HTPC users DVBViewer is amongst the most popular & respected TV software, this is evidenced by the fact that it is used as adapted OEM software for 3 of the top TV card and box manufacturers, TechniSat, TerraTec, and TechnoTrend . It is also supported by the main open source EPG grabber, EPGCollector along with Microsoft's Windows Media Center. The article for ProgDVB (a commercial rival) uses references that are completely out of date - a poll on a thread that was most active in 2005, and another link that does not work, since then there has been a huge amount work on DVBViewer, but really I'm not sure polls can really be considered reliable anyway. One issue may be that the software is most popular in Germany- the German Wikipedia article has survived perfectly well without challenge to its notability. You can see the forums have many thousands of posts, many more I would submit than the forums of many free applications listed on this site. Ezekial 9 (talk) 21:18, 13 August 2012 (UTC) — Ezekial 9 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. 
 * A link I think that points quite reliably to its popularity - 5,213,623 views on Videohelp (583 this month), compare this to 9,515,255 but only 381 views this month for the free alternative MediaPortal which has a Wikipedia article here. I think it compares quite favourably considering that you would expect a free software to be more popular. You can also see plenty of discussion i.e. 1000+ mentions on major UK forums AVForums & Digital Spy. Ezekial 9 (talk) 21:43, 13 August 2012 (UTC) — Ezekial 9 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. 
 * These arguments are generally considered to be of little value, as there is a Notability guideline, which is specifically crafted to reflect community's consensus on appropriateness of topics inclusion. To be worth inclusion the topic should be covered in independent reliable sources in significant depth. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 22:24, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm aware of the Notability guideline, but would you be so kind to explain which of the books and other references written and deleted in the article failed the notability criterias? . — Christian Hackbart (talk) 10:48, 14 August 2012 (UTC) —  CHackbart (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * If you're asking about these, then definitely all of them. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 12:45, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
 * With all due respect, may i ask why all of them "violate" the Notability, because honestly i don't get it. Each source mentions the application and with more than a sentence. They all have at least one complete chapter about the software (can be verified by the available google exzerpts) — Christian Hackbart (talk) 21:06, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep: As an independent user of the application I vote for keeping the article on DVBViewer. In my opinion it's exactly as notable as many other applications that have an article (e.g. ProgDVB, MediaPortal, XBMC or even Windows Media Center). Some applications listed in Template:Home theater PC (application software) along with DVBViewer I never heard of at all! DVBViewer is widely popular throughout the net as already stated before (see also popular German sources, ) and was cited many times in printed computer magazines (don't have a link/issue at hand right now, but I clearly remember for example an article in German magazine "PC Magazin" - now part of Magnus group - regarding the cutting edge performance of DVBViewer regarding playback of full-HD material, long before competitors were able to achieve it). There are even some scientific publications including DVBViewer to investigate various properties of streaming TV over network connections: ,.
 * OK I see Christian has added an review in english that I think counts as notable from computeractive. There is no doubt a bias towards german usage with the application, so there may be more german reviews out there. I think the fact DVBViewer is used as adapted software for three of the main satellite set top box & TV card manufacturers, i.e. Technisat, Terratec & Technotrend for all their PC products makes it definitely notable in itself:


 * http://www.technisat.com/en_XX/PC-products/352-76/
 * http://www.technisat.com/de_DE/Sat-%28DVB-S%29/352-1294131238891/
 * http://www.technisat.com/en_XX/SkyStar-USB-HD/352-1294131238891-1246563456759/#tab3
 * http://www.technisat.com/en_XX/SkyStar-S2/352-1294131238891-1246563456789/#tab3


 * http://ftp.terratec.de/Receiver/TERRATEC_T5_Rev.2/Manuals/TERRATEC_T5_Quick_Guide.pdf
 * http://www.terratec.net/en/products/driver/produkte_treiber_en_90840.html
 * http://www.terratec.net/en/products/driver/produkte_treiber_en_91467.html


 * http://engl.technotrend.eu/2762/PRODUCTS_for_PC.html
 * click each product, then data sheet, see reference to TT viewer i.e. here
 * DVBShop confirms TT Viewer is based on DVBViewer here


 * You can see reviews of these products which include major discussion of DVBViewer or its variants' features on the major site techradar here, also with mentions where they recommend or use the software with other TV card or box reviews (16 articles in total):


 * http://www.techradar.com/search?searchTerm=dvbviewer&rows=40&articleTerritory=en-gb&articleFrontPage=&articleType=reviews&page=1


 * in depth discussion of DVBViewer with screenshots here
 * http://www.techradar.com/reviews/pc-mac/pc-components/tv-tuner-cards/technisat-skystar-usb-hd-911911/review
 * http://www.techradar.com/reviews/pc-mac/pc-components/tv-tuner-cards/technisat-skystar-usb-2-ci-602623/review


 * it is also mentioned on the Blackgold TV card review:


 * ''"For digital TV duties, we used the excellent DVBViewer software. You have to decide between cable (though Virgin Media's channels are encrypted) and terrestrial – owing to that single input you can't connect both simultaneously.


 * Searching and use is very much dependent on the specific software that you're using. DVBViewer allows you to search a full band, or a specific channel or range. The entire UK UHF spectrum (channels 21-69) was searched in around three-and-a-half minutes."''


 * Pinnacle nanostick
 * "Also positive is PCTV's decision to adopt BDA drivers, instead of a proprietary one so we were successfully able to partner the capable DVBViewer with the nanoStick T2. "


 * and many more mentions in the other 12 techradar articles. Ezekial 9 (talk) 12:31, 14 August 2012 (UTC) — Ezekial 9 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. 
 * Just to add another 2psworth, the english reviews are all UK based, so it is probably true that there is weakness in the US/Canadian market with the software which explains lack of any reviews on North American websites, but in Europe it definitely is well known & notable amongst HTPC users. Ezekial 9 (talk) 12:39, 14 August 2012 (UTC) —  Ezekial 9 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. 
 * All of these are either primary sources, self-published or well below the significant coverage standard. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 12:45, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Sure the manufacturer's websites are primary sources, but there is no way you can say reviews in Computer Active or Techradar are self published or below standard, the former is a major UK Computer magazine that has been going for 14 years, and the latter is a consolidation of Future Publishing's tech magazine content online which are also widely respected. Ezekial 9 (talk) 13:07, 14 August 2012 (UTC) —  Ezekial 9 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. 
 * Well, actually they are a lot below standard, as they don't allow to distinguish this particular software from generic DVB software. In effect, you can't write any verifiable material in the article, that would neither belong to parent topic nor rely on primary sources. This is the essence of Notability guideline. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 13:25, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I have to agree with Dmitrij D. Czarkoff here. The cited reviews in Chip, Heise and ComputerInteractive don't come up to the significance requirement of WP:NSOFT (they basically say the software exists and is not broken). The PC Magazin review Ezekial 9 refers to might, but an actual reference to it would be needed as a source. Notability is not inherited, so that the software is shipped together with other products doesn't help with notability. -- BenTels (talk) 13:15, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Firstly, I should clarify I have absolutely no commercial connection to this software, I am a UK based user who saw the issue brought up on the forums. I feel you are both wrong on this and are perhaps being slightly anything that is not popular in North America is not notable biased, the Computer Active review clearly goes much further than saying the "software exists and is not broken". It clearly lists the features of the product and specifically says:


 * "Many such features are way beyond the scope of Windows Media Center, such as the ability to view multiple channels at once using a single tuner card. You can also extend the programs functionality using VBscript."


 * and
 * "The latest version includes support for multiple TV tuners and H.264 support, which allows you to watch High Definition TV broadcasts – something Windows Media Center does not yet support."


 * delivering specific praise for the product:


 * "Once you’ve configured the software to your liking you will have created a home theatre PC that’s easy to use, looks great and works just the way you want it to."


 * "Apart from its low cost, one of the most attractive aspects of DVB Viewer Pro is the thriving support forum. Purchasing the software entitles you to free updates and, in cases of severe problems, direct email support from the program’s developer."


 * In most reviews it is actually quite rare to directly compare to other products within the review. The market for HTPC is still quite small in comparison to the various STBs so the likelihood of a direct HTPC/DVB software shootout is quite small although it may happen. I feel the claim that notably is not inherited is also a bit false, that the software is chosen to be included by so many manufacturers surely is testament to its quality & reliability, and you can see the comments on techradar, which is a major UK website & published magazine, part of Future plc which repeatedly praise DVBViewer itself not just the software included with various cards. Ezekial 9 (talk) 16:46, 14 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment: I have absolutely no commercial connection to this software
 * Didn't think that you did.
 * I feel you are both wrong
 * That's allowed.
 * anything that is not popular in North
 * I'm Dutch and live in The Netherlands. But thanks for the thought.
 * WP:NSOFT has a couple of basic criteria for notability of software. Essentially it's got to be historically significant or has to be covered as a package in schools or has to be covered in multiple independent printed manuals or instruction books, or has to be shown in reviews to be significant in its own field (which means that it has to add something technologically, it has to be new as a category of software or totally innovative in an existing category). I'm assuming the first three are not under consideration, so the question is whether DVBViewer is significant in its field.
 * "Many such features are way beyond the scope of Windows Media Center, such as the ability to view multiple channels at once using a single tuner card. You can also extend the programs functionality using VBscript."
 * So it's got more features than another product. And it supports scripting. Like half a dozen other software packages I could mention. How is that significant?
 * something Windows Media Center does not yet support
 * Being better at your job than another product is not significant. Doing something nobody else had ever thought of, that would be significant.
 * "Once you’ve configured the software to your liking you will have created a home theatre PC that’s easy to use, looks great and works just the way you want it to."
 * "Once you've got it working, it works." True about practically anything. Does not amount to significance.
 * "Apart from its low cost, one of the most attractive aspects of DVB Viewer Pro is the thriving support forum. Purchasing the software entitles you to free updates and, in cases of severe problems, direct email support from the program’s developer."
 * Support forum, free updates. Very common business practice, nothing to do with the software itself.
 * In most reviews it is actually quite rare to directly compare to other products within the review.
 * Which is perfect from a WP:NSOFT point of view, because being compared to a single product does absolutely nothing for significance. Adding a completely new idea to the entire field is significant.
 * testament to its quality & reliability
 * Quality and reliability, check. Neither one does anything for notability. -- BenTels (talk) 21:24, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I feel the links I have provided from the UK & others from the German press are perfectly adequate in determining notability. That you are from the Netherlands doesn't necessarily mean you will not jump to the conclusion that because software is not covered to a significant extent in North American websites i.e. CNET et al it is not notable. There is no doubt that free applications, almost by definition attract more supporters, some ideologically driven. I can understand why there might be a systemic bias on Wikipedia against commercial software of a similar user base to free applications due to fears over advertising. I really do not think this is a risk here, DVBViewer barely makes any money at all for the creator, only enough to allow them to continue development, and run the wiki & forums, it is not their main employment, most of the 15 euro charge is taken up by German taxes. If DVBViewer were not significant, the article on German wikipedia would have been nominated for deletion, which I don't believe it ever has been. Ezekial 9 (talk) 22:34, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I feel the links I have [...] in determining notability.
 * Undoubtedly. But I don't agree with you that they show notability.
 * That you are [...] over advertising.
 * So much for an attempt at subtlety. Okay, let's try directness instead: I have responded to your arguments above with reference to the policies of Wikipedia and not to locality of the sources. You have absolutely no basis or reason whatsoever to assume a locality-based bias and I don't really appreciate the ad hominem circumstantial attack. Please refer to WP:NSOFT for the basis of my responses and to WP:CIVIL for other matters.
 * If DVBViewer were not significant, the article on German wikipedia would have been nominated for deletion, which I don't believe it ever has been.
 * See WP:OTHERLANGS. -- BenTels (talk) 23:07, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree the sources given on the German webpage aren't the best as to verify notability, I think the UK computer active & techradar links do do this. Ezekial 9 (talk) 23:13, 15 August 2012 (UTC)


 * I don't have the full PC Magazin article at hand but I found an excerpt here:
 * "[Mediaportal] lief jedoch leider in der Vergangenheit immer noch nicht überall zufriedenstellend stabil, sodass wir Multimedia-Enthusiasten derzeit den kommerziellen, aber mit 15 Euro recht günstigen DVBViewer (www.dvbviewer.com) empfehlen, der vom Funktionsumfang her alle Mitbewerber in den Schatten stellt und sogar schon Unterstützung für viele der neuen HDTV-TV-Karten mit an Bord hat."
 * "[Mediaportal] still wasn't stable enough in all cases in the past, therefore we currently recommend the commercial, but for 15 euro quite low-priced, DVBViewer (www.dvbviewer.com) to the multimedia-enthusiast, which overshadows all competitors by means of it's range of functions and even ships with support for many of the new HDTV TV-cards already."
 * (from PC Magazin 03/2007, "Play it again - Multimedia-Konsument", WEKA MEDIA PUBLISHING GmbH)
 * The actual article also included a special feature on DVBViewer, maybe somebody else has a copy at hand. Patrick 1bc0 (talk) 14:11, 14 August 2012 (UTC) —  Patrick 1bc0 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. 
 * Comment: Did the article just say that DVBViewer has more features than any other competitive product, or did it mention DVBViewer as having added a feature that did not previously exist in TV tuner software? -- BenTels (talk) 21:32, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't believe this 23-word quote (I counted the relevant part) from PC Magazin (that itself tries hard to mimic PC Magazine to get noticed) really undergoes any serious discussion. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 22:03, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Your comments are almost by definition showing geographical bias now, that a German magazine cannot be a reputable source simply by not being in english and only published in Germany? It is part of a publishing house that covers 9 technology magazines, there are 7 results on their website for DVBViewer, one has a two paragraph review:


 * http://www.pcgo.de/ratgeber/download-tipps-86459.html
 * "DVBViewer ist ein erstklassiger Ersatz für die oft schwachbrüstigen Programme, die DVB-Fernseh-Adaptern beiliegen. Die Software eignet sich ::::zum Empfang von Digital-TV via Satellit, Kabel oder DVB-T und lässt auch bei HDTV- und Premiere-Fans keine Wünsche offen. Es speichert ::::Sendungen inklusive mehrerer Ton-Spuren auf der Festplatte. Mithilfe von Plug-ins von der Entwickler-Website steuern Sie die Software über ::::verschiedene Fernbedienungen.


 * Darüber hinaus überträgt DVBViewer Fernsehsendungen als Streaming an andere Rechner im Netz, in denen keine TV-Karte steckt. Noch ausbaufähig ::::sind die Mediacenter-Funktionen. Immerhin spielt der DVBViewer bereits jetzt Video-DVDs, MP3s und Videodateien ab, gibt MP3s und Internetradio ::::wieder und zeigt Digitalfotos an. Insgesamt ist das Preis/Leistungsverhältnis sehr gut."


 * Regarding "Did the article just say that DVBViewer has more features than any other competitive product, or did it mention DVBViewer as having added a feature that did not previously exist in TV tuner software?", it implies clearly that mediaportal is not stable, whereas DVBViewer is. Ezekial 9 (talk) 22:21, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
 * It is not geographical bias. It is significance and reliability bias. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 01:11, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Where is there any proof that that magazine is unreliable? Ezekial 9 (talk) 23:13, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
 * PC Magazin is a German sister publication of PC Magazine, in the same standing as PC Magazine. No problem with that as a source.
 * Regarding quote above, that's still just listing features -- it's not making any claims beyond just being a better implementation than the competition. And Mediaportal being unstable does not make a competitive product notable. -- BenTels (talk) 23:31, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Proof link for that? They have different publishers and don't link to each other, as I can see. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 01:11, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I'll check later. Either way, it makes no difference with regards to WP:NSOFT and the quote above.-- BenTels (talk) 02:39, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
 * For the record, PC Magazin is a reliable source on its own, but it is not related to PC Magazine, and indeed the mention of topic is nowhere close "significant". — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 22:07, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Would you classify this source as suitable to contribute to the significance requirement of WP:NSOFT? &mdash; Digital Digest - DVBViewer


 * Especially the section "Which features make it unique? -- DVBViewer contains functions which are groundbreaking : It was the first program with a so called DesktopTV mode and in its category the only product which offers AC-3 and Timeshifting features. It is even possible to handle more than one DVB device at the same time. Further on the multimedia skills of the DVBViewer do not need to hide behind other mediacenters. From playing multimedia contents up to receiving RSS newsfeeds, weather data, everything is possible." seems relevant &mdash; Patrick 1bc0 (talk) 01:02, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
 * This looks like self-published. No signs of editorial overlook along with clear signs of filing a form by someone who doesn't know the way the end result looks like. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 01:11, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree that site does look self published. Ezekial 9 (talk) 23:13, 15 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep The longs discussions above about the merits or distinctive features of the products are totally irrelevant to notability. The evidence seems to be that it has been the subject of significant editorial views and other third party discussion, and that's the criterion.  DGG ( talk ) 23:04, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment: It's not irrelevant under WP:NSOFT. WP:NSOFT has a significance requirement, to prevent run-of-the-mill software being notable simply because of reviews in magazines like PC Magazine and PC World which review products based on the fact that they exist. -- BenTels (talk) 23:31, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
 * This discussion is not about features, it's about significance of coverage. Each source with at least any signs of independence mentions the subject in less then one sentence, which flies in face of WP:GNG. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 01:11, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
 * That is simply not true, it was reviewed in Computeractive which is the UK's highest selling personal computer magazine here. I also feel that the techradar links do establish notability even though here DVBViewer is reviewed as part of a bundle of hardware & software or as test software:

http://www.techradar.com/search?searchTerm=dvbviewer&rows=40&articleTerritory=en-gb&articleFrontPage=&articleType=reviews&page=1


 * in depth discussion of DVBViewer with screenshots here
 * http://www.techradar.com/reviews/pc-mac/pc-components/tv-tuner-cards/technisat-skystar-usb-hd-911911/review


 * Ezekial 9 (talk) 23:19, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Oh, I missed the Computeractive's review indeed. We have one significant mention in reliable sources of multiple required.
 * About techradar: it seems you misunderstand the connotation of WP:N — we take reliable sources' judgment on notability of the subject. The very same idea is expressed in more detail in . In techradar's case the mention of the software is not the decision of the source — they just reviewed the hardware, and this software happened to be supplied with it. No sources' judgment we can relay on. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 23:50, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
 * But they did not "just review the hardware", they specifically & in detail list the features of the included DVBViewer version, even comparing it with the full commercial version, and also praise & recommend DVBViewer in other hardware reviews where it is not included. Ezekial 9 (talk) 00:06, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
 * They specifically in detail reviewed whatever came in package, as they do in all other reviews. This fact doesn't make software bundled with hardware inherently notable. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 00:16, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I have looked at the articles on notability and I can't see anywhere where it specifically says discussion of a product must be discounted as evidence of notability if it is reviewed as part of a package. The reality of this type of software is the most users of it use the bundled version (probably the same applies to Power DVD etc.). Ezekial 9 (talk) 09:53, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
 * See the explanation right above. The purpose of establishing notability — determining whether the subject was found worth significant mention — can't be reach. In fact, the techradars' review demonstrate that techradar found this software not worth separate mention and regards it as firmware. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 10:49, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Firmware is a completely different case, this is settings that are embedded into a chip on the device, this is completely non comparable, DVBViewer is software that has to be installed via a CD, the fact that 3 major manufacturers of PC TV cards & boxes chose to supply it with their product denote notability. Techradar describe DVBViewer on devices that it was not included with:


 * http://www.techradar.com/reviews/pc-mac/pc-components/tv-tuner-cards/black-gold-bgt3620-943596/review
 * "For digital TV duties, we used the excellent DVBViewer software. You have to decide between cable (though Virgin Media's channels are encrypted) and terrestrial – owing to that single input you can't connect both simultaneously.


 * Searching and use is very much dependent on the specific software that you're using. DVBViewer allows you to search a full band, or a specific channel or range. The entire UK UHF spectrum (channels 21-69) was searched in around three-and-a-half minutes."


 * http://www.techradar.com/reviews/pc-mac/pc-components/tv-tuner-cards/pinnacle-pctv-nanostick-t2-290e-929011/review
 * "Also positive is PCTV's decision to adopt BDA drivers, instead of a proprietary one so we were successfully able to partner the capable DVBViewer with the nanoStick T2. "


 * Ezekial 9 (talk) 17:47, 16 August 2012 (UTC) — Ezekial 9 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. 


 * In addition to those being trivial coverage or mentions, the very nature of the relationship of being "bundled"/"included" by some other manufacturer or vendor would fail the primary test of being "independent" of the subject... nor would the subject "inherit" notability due to being so closely associated. This includes product descriptions, bundle publications, manuals or any material written by sources closely associated with it. A case could be also made its nothing more than a press kit or advertising, marketing materials or similar work written on behalf of the subject.--Hu12 (talk) 16:12, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I think you are just nitpicking because you didn't see these sources that have now been presented when you first nominated, and would move the goalposts however many sources were provided. Ezekial 9 (talk) 17:47, 16 August 2012 (UTC) — Ezekial 9 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. 
 * This case seems to be an attempt to impose one's own view of "standards to apply" rather than those of the community. The "Independence of sources" is NOT nitpicking and applies to products. see Notability, which states;
 * "Independent of the subject" excludes works produced by those affiliated with the subject or its creator. ...[4]"''
 * Footnote [4] reads; "Works produced by the subject, or those with a strong connection to them, are unlikely to be strong evidence of notability. See also: Conflict of interest for handling of such situations."
 * --Hu12 (talk) 18:28, 16 August 2012 (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.