Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/XMedia Recode


 * 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 delete‎__EXPECTED_UNCONNECTED_PAGE__. Liz Read! Talk! 23:16, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

XMedia Recode

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

Only references are primary sources. Doesn't pass WP:GNG - Rich T&#124;C&#124;E-Mail 02:01, 13 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. - Rich T&#124;C&#124;E-Mail 02:01, 13 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep this subject meets WP:GNG
 * Softpedia staff review
 * Micro Mart review
 * A profile with staff editorial input in chip.de
 * Some coverage in several 3rd party books, here's a couple decent examples out of many in several languages
 * &mdash;siro&chi;o 05:06, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 02:06, 20 September 2023 (UTC) Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 03:34, 27 September 2023 (UTC) Relisting comment: third relist in hopes of generating further discussion Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 Talk Work 21:56, 4 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep. Non primary sources obviously need to be added, though. MarkiPoli (talk) 18:30, 13 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep per . Aydoh8 (talk) 04:33, 14 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete - If single paragraphs and write-ups in software download sites like Softpedia are sufficient for an entire stand-alone article, our standards are way too low. Softpedia "reviews" basically everything that's sent to it. The book is a single paragraph in a how-to book. These are more like directory listings than reviews. Beyond that, our article is currently an advertisement for the software, standing in for the official site and citing absolutely no independent sources. Delete for both notability and WP:TNT. &mdash; Rhododendrites  talk \\ 15:32, 19 September 2023 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.


 * Delete Other than the Softpedia product review, there are only mentions. The video is barely a minute long. I did find a "how to" and a software listing that may have been a source for some of the content of the article, or at least it contains much of the same information. Still, nothing that would raise this to notability, IMO, as these are just reiterations of the tech specs that come with the software. Lamona (talk) 21:04, 8 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete: Fails to have WP:SIGCOV and so fails WP:GNG. - UtherSRG (talk) 11:21, 11 October 2023 (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.