Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fastvideo SDK


 * 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 redirect to Fastvideo.  MBisanz  talk 01:16, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

Fastvideo SDK

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Fails WP:N. I find no coverage in unaffiliated sources meeting the general notability guidelines or any indication that this product meets the software notability guidelines. Largoplazo (talk) 03:02, 24 September 2016 (UTC)


 * I shared my thoughts on this matter on the talk page of this article. Please review. DmitryPivovarov (talk) 11:07, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. North America1000 17:22, 24 September 2016 (UTC)


 * As I mentioned on the talk page, Fastvideo SDK is included into Nvidia's catalog of the selected GPU applications, also the corresponding results and benchmarks are published on Nvidia.com by Nvidia itself. Do you imply Nvidia is somehow affiliated with Fastvideo? I would say that is pretty much unrealistic. Implying that the library that is mentioned by Nvidia in its own catalog of GPU libraries is not notable is unrealistic too in a sense. I mean if the inventor of the technology mentioned the library that uses the technology - this is notable. And not just mentioned - Nvidia's GPU-accelerated applications catalog is a de facto golden standard in this industry. You won't see any apps or libraries there Nvidia do not recommend. They all (including Fastvideo SDK) are approved and tested by Nvidia. The catalog recommends apps, not just mentions them. Therefore, I do not see how Fastvideo SDK does not meet general notability guidelines or is affiliated. I'm looking forward to any comments on this. Thanks. DmitryPivovarov (talk) 09:56, 26 September 2016 (UTC)


 * A single line listing, among hundreds, in a commercial manufacturer's catalog, stating no more than a perfunctory "JPEG, JPEG2000, Raw Bayer codecs / Fast JPEG, JPEG2000, Raw Bayer encoding and decoding on CUDA / Has multi-GPU support" is not substantial coverage, let alone substantial coverage in multiple sources. Also, you'll find nothing in the notability guidelines that acknowledges notability on account of having been recommended by Nvidiawhich, by the way, says nothing in this catalog about inclusion being equivalent to recommendation. As far as I can tell, all it's saying is that here are all the products that exist that are taking advantage of Nvidia's GPU technology. It's an Nvidia marketing vehicle and is, therefore, not coverage written at arm's length. Largoplazo (talk) 14:02, 26 September 2016 (UTC)


 * You are right. Nvidia is a commercial manufacturer. But that does not make it less authoritative. What kind of more authoritative coverage do you mean then? More authoritative than Nvidia who - I repeat - invented the entire GPU stuff? Could you say who could that be?


 * Also, the catalog does NOT list "all the products that exist". This is a selective list. And there is no "Submit your own app" button there. It would be a pretty dumb marketing to just include every single GPU app on Earth to the list, don't you think? Anyway, the question is not about if the inclusion in the catalog is notable and substantial. It is, just because there are NO other catalogs nor other conferences in this industry. The question is, do you take Nvidia as a reputable and independent source or not. If yes, one source is enough. If no, well... I don't know what to say then. Nvidia is #1 expert in GPU computations. Best technologies, best specialists, best hardware. And yet it is still not reputable in the GPU field? That's nonsense.


 * You see, I understand and respect your formalism and adherence to the letter of the law. But the thing is, there are no other serious and reputable sources other than Nvidia in the GPU computation field. Not to mention more reputable ones. There are no multiple sources. And even if there were, they would simply blindly reprint what Nvidia says. DmitryPivovarov (talk) 16:50, 26 September 2016 (UTC)


 * You are essentially arguing that, for this one product, we should override the long chain of consensuses that have gone into the creation of Wikipedia's notability guidelines and make up a new rule just for it. I think you're also continuing to conflate the quality of a product with its notability. Inclusion has nothing to do with the quality of a product. A product can be absolutely horrendous (see Microsoft Bob, for example) and still be notable.


 * I'm sorry, but Nvidia doesn't have the magical ability to confer notability, as Wikipedia defines it, all by itself, through a bare mention rather than substantial coverage, on each of the hundreds of products that appear in a catalog that it publishes just because it published them there, in complete disregard of Wikipedia's guidelines. If you meant to imply, above, that it's ridiculous to think that any reliable source (PC World? Game Informer? Esquire? The New York Times?) might have substantial coverage of it, then you're basically arguing  that it isn't notable, and that even its inclusion in the catalog wasn't sufficient to draw anyone's attention. Largoplazo (talk) 17:53, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * No, you should not override Wikipedia rules, of course. You should follow them. But from my point of view, the rules are for people, not people for the rules. And the magazines you listed have nothing to do with GPU computation and simply cannot say anything in this field without citing Nvidia. Therefore, their opinion on this topic is non-reputable even though they may provide wider coverage. Strange, but true. Anyway, thanks for considering and for your answers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DmitryPivovarov (talk • contribs) 19:19, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sarahj2107 (talk) 18:46, 7 October 2016 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Delete Significant coverage in reliable independent sources does not exist. Simply being associated with a notable company NVIDIA does not guarantee notability per WP:INHERITORG. There is nothing available which shows that this SDK is widely used. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 14:59, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 04:59, 15 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete; my original vote was to redirect to to Fastvideo where the subject was already mentioned. But my suggested target is at AfD itself so delete. K.e.coffman (talk) 17:44, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Fastvideo as a plausible search term. Fastvideo isn't deleted yet. --Mark viking (talk) 05:38, 23 October 2016 (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.