Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ogle DVD Player


 * 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. Possible merges have been discussed, and can continue to be done so through standard editorial processes. (non-admin closure) Steven Zhang  The clock is ticking....  01:00, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Ogle DVD Player

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Non-notable software written as a student project. Website down. No content in google. No releases in 7 years. Tagged for notability since Feb 2009. No references. PROD contested. Stuartyeates (talk) 05:55, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions.  —Tom Morris (talk) 06:33, 1 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep Ogle was definitely a big deal for Linux/*Nix users back in the day for playing DVDs on home computers. It has now pretty much faded away.  Anyway I found these reviews here and here from Linux Journal which is definitely a reliable source and this one from Tech Radar.  All three of these sources provide enough detail, I think, to establish the basic facts about the operation of the software, its usefulness back in the day, and notability.  None of these sources mention who created the software or give much of a history, which would be nice to have, but this information might exist somewhere on Google (though in dealing with open source software those kinds of details are often hard to find). SQGibbon (talk) 07:33, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
 * (a) good work finding those references, they're better than I found. (b) all three are reviews of the handful of DVD players available at the time, and while each includes a couple of paragraphs on Ogle, it could be argued that it's included for completeness, making them less than ideal notability references. Stuartyeates (talk) 20:09, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree they are less than ideal and there appears no chance that the article will ever be expanded again (after these refs make it in). If it was merely a table of players with columns for features then I would say that wasn't good enough. If it were separate articles just for that player that ran four, five, or more paragraphs then I would say it's clearly notable.  This is somewhere between all that but I think that given there are three articles (from reliable sources&mdash;though I am unfamiliar with Techradar.com) and the reviews are fairly substantive then the subject does qualify as notable.  I understand it's not a perfectly clear-cut case but I think at the least it leans towards keeping. SQGibbon (talk) 05:30, 2 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Weak Keep - Abandonware.  This is a very marginal software product: only in existence for a few years, and with barely any sources.  Is there a "List of .." article that it could be merged into?  Perhaps an article on freeware DVD players?  or a list of Linux apps?  Maybe Comparison of video player software. --Noleander (talk) 14:19, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
 * There is currently work underway to purge software lists of non-notable software, so this may not be a good solution. See for example the recent restructure at List of free software web applications (to save it from AfD) and the proposed work on List of free software Android applications. Stuartyeates (talk) 20:09, 1 September 2011 (UTC)


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


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein   05:55, 9 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep, per SQGibbon. Age does not count against notability, and I think the linux today articles are enough. I would not oppose merging this into an article on Linux DVD software, assuming such exists or someone wants to create same. --Nuujinn (talk) 00:15, 17 September 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.