Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PowerDVD


 * 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. Only one editor supported deletion, and that only conditionally. Article has been improved; nominator has withdrawn nomination, no other deletes. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 22:17, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

PowerDVD

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

Blatant advertising, speedy deletion was contested. The article and all prior versions are nothing more than a product sell sheet. There are no references and is no independently verifiable information. Wikipedia does not need to host a virtual copy of content from a corporate web site. Jehochman Arrr! 12:56, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep/Rewrite - Quite a well known piece of software, but the article needs to be rewritten. Dzhugashvili (talk) 13:45, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. A well known piece of consumer software.  Spam text is not as bad as many. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:02, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Perhaps you could find a reference or two. At this point there are not to support these assertions of notability. I believe you, but it would really help the article if it had at least a few references, and if the advertising were removed. Jehochman Arrr! 14:08, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep - Well known software as supported by sources such as and . The article does need some major work though. Rilak (talk) 14:16, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep, per reasons above. SF007 (talk) 15:32, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep and cleanup. Well known software, though lacking refs to show it. I'll take a crack at adding appropriate ones. Arakunem Talk 17:08, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Added some third party reviews to Refs section. Still needs lots of cleanup and inline cites, but this hopefully demonstrates notability. Arakunem Talk 17:48, 19 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep but cleanup. Notable piece of software, with third-party reviews satisfying notability. If it reads like an ad, that's a content issue, not an AFD issue. 23skidoo (talk) 18:04, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep I can't beleive some moron nominated this for deletion. It needs improvement, sure, but PowerDVD is well know, has been going for years and is shipped on many new PCs. For a long time it was one of only two legal DVD players for Windows. Honestly, stop trying to fuck up Wikipedia and do something constructive like improving the article.Mojo-chan (talk) 23:07, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Conditional speedy delete: erase it if nobody would improve the article. Alexius08 is welcome to talk about his contributions. 02:36, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep per everyone. JuJube (talk) 04:10, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment I am disappointed at the keep comments that fail to provide any evidence of notability, and that fail to reflect any efforts to improve the article.  I still do not see references to establish notability, nor do I see evidence that this article can ever be anything more than a stub.  Perhaps we could create an article about CyberLink and cover all of the company's products there.  This should be done in a non-promotional way. Jehochman Talk 18:19, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment I added some more material and references. The article is no longer just a stub and goes some way (all the way?) to establishing notability. For example, most PCs have had a DVD capable optical drive since around 1999-2000. Thus, most ship with DVD playing software. The two major DVD players for Windows are PowerDVD and WinDVD, so almost every consumer PC system since around about 2000 has shipped with one of those. PowerDVD and WinDVD are also the only official ways to play HD-DVD and Blu-Ray discs on a PC. To say PowerDVD is not notable is ridiculous and just panders to deletionism. Just because an article needs improvement (which it is getting) is not a reason to delete it. It's a reason to improve it. Instead of trying to destroy stuff on Wikipedia, why not try to organise improvements?Mojo-chan (talk) 21:36, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much for your efforts. Jehochman Talk 21:48, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree to close this discussion as keep, now that references have been found. Jehochman Talk 21:50, 20 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.