Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/K-Lite 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   no consensus. ff m  01:06, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

K-Lite Codec Pack

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

No indication of any significant independent secondary coverage from any source. I believe this article fails WP:N. Article is almost entirely unsourced - and as far as I can find unsourceable. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 22:37, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete per nomination. X Marx the Spot (talk) 22:43, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep, it is one of the most popular codec packs. It is offered on the most popular download websites  , it even as a mention at pcworld.com . It is even THE most downloaded program at freecodecs.com . I mean, come on, it's hard to find reviews, and lots of "notable" references for a codec packs, don't you think?
 * Keep Multiple recommendations on the tech pages of general interest publications e.g. The Guardian (UK), Pakistan Dawn, The Courier-Mail (Aus). Plus, also in technical publications, as noted PC World, but also VNUNet, ZDnet, iT news etc. Tassedethe (talk) 10:34, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep K-Lite Codec Pack is one of the most widely used codec packs. Many respectable journals had articles about it (See this). For nominator: if you used google to find sources it gave you (not surprisinly) a bunch of download links. You should try a more elaborate search. It took only two minutes for me to find a link to the PC World. Ruslik (talk) 11:58, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Minor mention in PC world is not significant coverage in multiple reliable sources. Everything I've seen so far has been minor mentions or non-reliable sources. ---J.S  (T/C/WRE) 03:04, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete but mention in (and possibly redirect to) a suitable article e.g. Codec. The "sources" quoted above are all trivial mentions, saying nothing about the pack itself, but then, what is there to say? A codec pack has no intrinsic value beyond the individual codecs it contains. Apparently some of these have been removed after legal challenges, but this - the only piece of non-trivial information about the pack itself - is sourced to an online forum and thus not reliable. Fails WP:N and WP:V.  S HEFFIELD S TEEL TALK 14:12, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. Popular and well-known, but needs reviews/recommendations from computing magazines.  Can't merge to "codec" because that's a very general term in telecommunications, not just software. Squidfryerchef (talk) 23:11, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Do you have any non-trivial reliable secondary sources that show that K-lite Codec Pack is popular and well known? ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 21:22, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions.   --  Fabrictramp  |  talk to me  14:08, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Weak delete WP:ILIKEIT and I would love to say "keep" but the naysayers are right. A lot of mentions but they are trivial. IMO it's notable, just not "Wikinotable". :(" --Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:42, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment. There's a lot of Q-and-A type columns in computer magazines where someone asks for something flexible that can play a lot of formats, and they say K-Lite.  e.g. "Codec Conundrum" at PC World.  It may be a short column, but I wouldn't consider it a trivial mention.  I'd consider it as a description of it being the best or most popular. Squidfryerchef (talk) 01:56, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
 * A side mention in a bigger article is the very definition of "trivial" as wikipedia has always used it. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 18:45, 27 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete per SheffieldSteel. Stifle (talk) 07:21, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete - lack of significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject. PhilKnight (talk) 23:35, 27 September 2008 (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.