Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lagarith


 * 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.   A rbitrarily 0   ( talk ) 21:12, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Lagarith

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

I can't find significant coverage for this codec. Joe Chill (talk) 01:39, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
 * There mostly isn't any, not just for Lagarith though, but for lossless video codecs in general. I've tried myself to find good sources, but have only found 1 to 3 that meet wikipedia's source requirements. I've gone ahead and added the 2 related ones to the article, but it seems a bit off to have the same source on every other article related to lossless video. -- Brandished (talk) 19:31, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 00:34, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.

I saw that the topic is marked for deletion, but I did not see any reason given for deleting it. Imagine my position on this. I just came from a very satisfying session of creating lossless video from a major 3D application, and, given the style of my rendering, this codec compresses it better than most of the alternatives. Given its quality, reliability, compression efficiency, and the relative lack of alternatives, this topic is an important one. Please expand the coverage--don't destroy it! Chairease (talk) 05:38, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
 * No reason? I linked to WP:N. Joe Chill (talk) 12:23, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 15:52, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.


 * Delete. Can't find any sources on the software.  I work with lossless video and audio, so the software may come in handy however.  But delete the article.    TheWeak Willed   (T * G) 21:16, 16 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep. I believe this is a encoding scheme is noteworthy as it's been consistently shown to outperform most (if not all) other lossless codecs at the editing stage. I don't think there's enough sourced content here to justify this being an independent article though.  I think a better idea would be consolidating this into a "lossless video" article with most of the other lossless video codecs (Huffyuv, MSU, FFV1, SheerVideo).   Most of them are in the same shape as far as content and have a fair amount of overlapping material.  This would also prevent these articles from being re-added later. Brandished (talk) 23:06, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. I added a reference. Axl  ¤  [Talk]  10:06, 23 November 2009 (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.