Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/DVBViewer (2nd nomination)


 * 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. Please wait at least 3 months to renominate. Mark Arsten (talk) 17:14, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

DVBViewer
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  •  Stats )

Relisting due to a no consensus, non administrator close. Article blatently fails WP:NOTABILITY and WP:NSOFT. Every "keep vote" in the previous debate except one was created specifically for that deletion discussion. Five long term, trusted and established Wikipedia editors made reasoned arguments with clear consensus as "Delete". Article was previously deleted under PROD and once as G11 and twice created by the software's author(WP:COI), Christian Hackbart and shortly after AFD nomination and an announcement on DVBViewer's forums (@ 13 August 2012 - 19:34) these WP:SPA accounts were created;
 * 23:09, 13 August 2012 created a user account
 * 20:53, 13 August 2012 created a user account

Article does contain multiple links masquerading as references, but a closer look reveals they are merely trivial coverage or mentions or in some cases have a "strong connection" with the subject. The nature being "bundled"/"included" by hardware or some other manufacturer or vendor fails the primary test of being "independent" of the subject... nor would the subject "inherit" notability due to being so closely associated. "Independent of the subject" excludes works produced by those affiliated with the subject or its creator. ...[4]"''. Also see . Hu12 (talk) 18:10, 17 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete: Just for the record: I still see no proof of notability regarding this product and, for now, stand by my !vote from the last AfD. -- BenTels (talk) 19:03, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment Deletion review really would have been a better idea, and since this is essentially an extension of the previous discussion, all participants there should have been notified. I've notified them now. --Philosopher Let us reason together. 19:25, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete: only one source with significant coverage doesn't justify a separate article per WP:GNG. — — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 19:36, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Deletion review would definitely have been a better idea. You can't just relist until you get a result you like (see WP:KEEPLISTINGTILITGETSDELETED).  List at DRV which is the proper venue for challenging a close.— S Marshall  T/C 20:48, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep and wait a while. Even after a non-consensus close, relisting immediately at AfD is very poor practice. There is much more chance of obtaining consensus and discouraging any SPAs if you wait a few weeks. I differ from others in not recommending Del Rev either--the close took account of the referencing, not vote counting. It recognized that the GNG was met, and saw the delete arguments as people insisting that higher standards should be applied to software. (I see it slightly differently, that the question was whether the other sources beyond the admitted significant review amounted to significant coverage). There was an attempt to argue that the software was not good software, basing the argument  on NSOFT, which ignored the fact that NSOFT explicitly recognizes the importance of the software as an alternative to the GNG, not as an additional criterion.   I think as an habitué of Del Rev that in such circumstances the del rev would have told you to wait and place a second afd.  If this sounds circular, it rather means that a second attempt to delete it immediately would not get much traction anywhere.  DGG ( talk ) 21:16, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. 00:57, 18 August 2012 (UTC)  • Gene93k (talk) 00:57, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Additionally to the very honourable but rather general mention in PC Magazin 03/2007 I found a much more specific mention in an earlier issue of the magazine (that I had in mind initially) that is significant without doubt. In PC Magazin 10/2006 there's a 5-page article concerning DVB-S2 reception using personal computers (it was state of the art at that time, DVB-S2 PC-cards just became readily available on the market). Regarding alternative software there's a half-page-box exclusively covering DVBViewer praising and describing all of it's features. Especially BDA support for most of the (at that time) brand-new DVB-S2 cards, as well as the sophisticated rendering pipeline (allowing for decoding of the H.264/MPEG-4 AVC stream and rendering in real time) were pointed out, beeing crucial aspects of HDTV playback. --Patrick 1bc0 (talk) 00:20, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep and as per DGG, wait a while. Without predjudice to  the closure,  immediately  relisting an AfD is discouraged, and the risk is high that  SPA may comment again which may possibly cloud the issue as regards notability guidelines simply resulting  in  no consensus again. Ideally, the outcome for this article needs to  be decided one way or the other. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:05, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep: Besides the fact that the original article has been created by one of the author(s) of the software, it has been rewritten multiple times and suits the standard for software here in wikipedia more than enough. I also think (according to DGG) it is not wise to create AfD´s until the article is deleted. As far as i remembers, all tv adapters i brought here where shipped with the DVBViewer - or at least one of its derivates. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.143.29.58 (talk) 19:22, 19 August 2012 (UTC) — 87.143.29.58 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Keep with my original arguments from first nomination (read there, posting them here again would be as pointless as the second nomination directly after the first).
 * 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.