Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/OggConvert (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   keep. –MuZemike 06:08, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

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

In the previous AfD, two of the three people who voted for delete are currently involved in Arbitration/Requests/Case/Tothwolf/Evidence. After I closed it, Pohta ce-am pohtit pointed this out to me, so I have decided to rerun this AfD. King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 18:48, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:08, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep this seems to be a genuine Open Source software project available in many language options. Its also positively reviewed, recommended and linked to from many linux distro websites. http://www.linux.com/archive/feature/123574 Annette46 (talk) 21:49, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Can you find more online reviews? Samboy (talk) 18:30, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
 * YES. Satisfied users and and reccos, . Apparently in the linux world it is one of the few converters to do Matroska <--> Dirac conversions  Annette46 (talk) 20:12, 31 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Weak keep or merge to GStreamer. It's true that it has one fairly long review, which was ignored in the previous AfD, but that's about it. It's not mentioned at all in any books. From the linux.com review I gather it's just a front-end for GStreamer, so a merge there should make sense. Pcap ping  00:24, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Merge. The policy for keeping a software program’s article in the Wiki is multiple third-party independent notable sources.  So far, we have found only one.  Books and Scholar searches on Google have zero hits. Samboy (talk) 18:27, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
 * That's not exactly the policy (actually it's a guideline). The wording is "Multiple sources are generally preferred", and there are some footnotes explaning that it's acceptable to write from a single secondary source as long there's enough depth, and NPOV can be observed, but also that the "lack of multiple sources suggests that the topic may be more suitable for inclusion in an article on a broader topic". So, either outcome could reasonably be decided for this article. Pcap ping  19:30, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
 * One of the things I really would like to see is to have WP:Notability (software) be an article that reflects consensus of Wikipedia editors; I’ve already worked on the article to get rid of ideas which don’t seem to reflect consensus like trying to make magazine reviews forbidden when deciding whether to keep an article. Samboy (talk) 21:08, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete, still. This still fails notability guidelines.  We still are an encyclopedia and not a software directory.  Is there evidence of any other non-trivial coverage from reliable third party publications, aside from linux.com?  JBsupreme (talk) 21:41, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep The linux.com article is a fine enough source for this stub.  I don't think it should be merged to gstreamer.  Just because it uses gstreamer as a backend doesn't mean that it belongs there in the absence of a stand-alone article. --Karnesky (talk) 01:10, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Weak keep per Pcap. This is written from a neutral point of view, and even though there's only one third-party source, it's in-depth coverage so I believe WP:N is met. I would support a merger, but as Karnesky points out, there doesn't appear to be a suitable target article. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 01:52, 4 January 2010 (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.