Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/EnKoDeur-Mixer


 * 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   delete. -- Cirt (talk) 18:35, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

EnKoDeur-Mixer

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Unremarkable open source software. Lacks significant coverage in 3rd party sources. Searches on proper title (EnKoDeur-Mixer) produce primary sources. Searches the acronym (e.g. EKD video) bring up the expected list of file download sites. Not clear how this might meet WP:GNG RadioFan (talk) 22:59, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, but i don't understand why this article is proposed to be deleted. Yesterday's evening, i've completed it to help people use free software for audio/video editing... What's wrong, the title ? To download the software, you have to go to the official website. Erasing this article should be a large error. Laurent Bellegarde 09:36 6 june 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Laurentb64 (talk • contribs)
 * Wikipedia is not a place to help people use free software for audio/video editing. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and as RadioFan explained, all articles must satisfy the criteria described in the Notability guideline. In particular, a topic can have its own article only if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. The article currently does not meet the requirement, the sources are either primary sources (the product home page) or self-published sources (wikis). As the "reliable sources" guideline says, "self-published media—whether books, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, blogs, personal pages on social networking sites, Internet forum postings, or tweets—are largely not acceptable".&mdash;J. M. (talk) 03:13, 7 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions.  — • Gene93k (talk) 19:57, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Hi all,

Ok, I understand yours arguments,and as I'm teacher and using wikipedia with my students I understand that wikipedia is not a place to make any kind of advertissement. Still there is a question, why other software, as cinelerra or openshot video editor are in the encyclopedia ? Theses softwares aren't covered by any books, only press magasines as my articles in linux-pratique, or in my book "free audio/video edtion" published in eyrolles edition in french language. In This book, i've written a complete chapter on encoding and main information is based on EKD. I'm not the one who create the stub, i've just beleive that it was possible to complete and improve information to a large public to know that editing video freely was possible on any plateform with EKD. 06:46, 7 june 2011,UTC — Preceding unsigned comment added by Laurentb64 (talk • contribs)
 * First, "other stuff exists" is one of the arguments to avoid in deletion discussions. Second, while for example the OpenShot article indeed lacks reliable sources, a quick Google search reveals that they can be easily added, as it has received significant coverage in reliable sources with editorial review (e.g., ). The same with Cinelerra . I can't find anything like this for EKD. All I can see is download sites, blogs, wikis and similar weak, unacceptable sources. Third, self-published books are mentioned as unacceptable sources in the official Wikipedia guideline, too (see the quoted text above). And again, letting people know "that editing video freely is possible on any platform with EKD" is not the goal of Wikipedia.&mdash;J. M. (talk) 05:21, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Hi all,

Is one theses links could help to give this article more credibility ?


 * http://www.libellules.ch/dotclear/index.php?post/2010/10/27/EKD-EnKoDeur-Mixeur
 * http://www.programmez.com/actualites.php?titre_actu=Retouchez-vos-videos-avec-EKD-14-5&id_actu=4882
 * http://www.linuxpedia.fr/doku.php/multimedia/ekd
 * http://coagul.org/drupal/node/500/
 * http://atelier-multimedia.bm-limoges.fr/blog/2009/12/10/ekd-post-production-image-et-video/
 * http://www.ohloh.net/p/ekd

Also, there a mention to ekd in the french wikipedia here :

http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advanced_Video_Codec_High_Definition

I have a talk with the main author of EKD, he doesn't understand why, in the french wikipedia it is possible to add info about this software and not in the english one. I'm agree that there is a lot of clumsiness in this stub, but if there is a chance to edit/modified it in the good policy of wikipedia, I could do my best to avoid deletion.

About my book, as i'm not the author of EKD, i contribute only in functionnality and testing, I could not understand what you call an self-published book, I am an author independant of any software, published by one of the most famous book editor in France, eyrolles, here is the link to the book :

http://www.eyrolles.com/Audiovisuel/Livre/montage-video-et-audio-libre-9782212121483

it is now a reference about free audio-video editing software, and of course, if the chapter dedicated to ekd in it could not help to give more creditibility to ekd's wikipedia article, I think there is no solution to avoid deletion.

Hope it helps.

Laurent Bellegarde — Preceding unsigned comment added by Laurentb64 (talk • contribs) 08:16, 8 June 2011 (UTC)


 * I don't know why the EKD article exists on the French Wikipedia, as I do not read the French Wikipedia. Anyway, as I explained, "other stuff exists" is not an argument here—French Wikipedia is not as frequently visited as the English version, so it is possible that people just haven't noticed. Nobody monitors all articles everywhere, especially if they're not prominent, popular articles. There are articles that exist only because nobody has noticed yet.


 * For the sources—English sources are generally preferred on English Wikipedia. Anyway, the first source appears to be a blog. As I explained before, blogs are generally not acceptable sources. The second source is nothing else than just a brief announcement. The third source is a wiki. As I explained, wikis are not acceptable sources. The fourth source—I am not sure about that. The fifth source is a blog, and all it says is that EKD exists. Which is not useful. And the sixth source is nothing else than an autogenerated analysis page.


 * So no, I still cannot see anything that would justify the inclusion of EKD on the English Wikipedia.
 * P.S. Please sign your posts using the four tildes or the signature button.&mdash;J. M. (talk) 19:09, 8 June 2011 (UTC)


 * This isn't a game of find the software mentioned on the internet somewhere. Content in the article must be verifiable and use sources which meet reliability standards.  It sounds daunting for someone new to Wikipedia but it really isn't.  Slow down, read the links mentioned in this discussion and ask questions if you need to.  You dont need to panic this discussion will go on for at least a week before any decision might be made.  All that being said, I'm not seeing how you are going to be able to meet these guidelines with this particular software.  It might meet notability guidelines some day, but that doesn't appear to be today.--RadioFan (talk) 23:22, 8 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 01:21, 12 June 2011 (UTC)




 * comment the debate hasn't elicited any sources to support WP:Notability TEDickey (talk) 10:38, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete. Fails to meet the threshold of significant coverage in reliable 3rd-party sources, therefore notability not established. Dawn Bard (talk) 23:53, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete you would expect a new software to get at least something in mainstream news. nothing in gnews . LibStar (talk) 08:04, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete, fails Notability. You would think that at least one newspaper or reliable magazine would mention it. SwisterTwister (talk) 22:06, 14 June 2011 (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.