Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Comparison of video encoders

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 redirect to Comparison of video codecs. postdlf (talk) 22:26, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comparison of video encoders

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This list is a poor content fork of Comparison of video converters with only three items, two of which don't belong in it! Codename Lisa (talk) 14:25, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:43, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:44, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, makes no sense, and at least HandBrake is covered by Comparison of video converters. –Be..anyone (talk) 19:37, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Comparison of video codecs, the more comprehensive article. (This article simply lists a few apps which include one or more codecs). Pax 10:54, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm... The name is certainly suitable but the contents are like apples and lizards. "Redirect" here would mean "delete and make a redirect". Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 08:35, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Actually the name is poor, because "encoder" (as opposed to codec) does not refer to a standard with known parameters; instead it refers to products. So, not only will there eventually be inevitable promotional issues if kept, but the article will suffer from constant obsolescence as products go through upgrades. Many of the products also contain more than one codec, making comparisons even more difficult. Given that virtually all present encoders are simply GUI shells running codec command-line scripts under the hood, codec comparison is just going to be the more useful article now and in the foreseeable future. Pax 22:40, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well... in the interest of remaining on topic, I just say that I have no problem with leaving a redirect after deletion. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 08:35, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:19, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect , to the Comparison of video codecs would be fine. Since It already includes all these Codecs list, their company and some apps being listed in this article. --A.Minkowiski^{_Lets t@lk} 08:20, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. This article on "encoders" is redundant. There are software applications to handle video and there are codecs that those programs use to handle specific file formats, we already have articles for those two topics. Comparison of video codecs is the more appropriate redirect target. Alsee (talk) 09:09, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Comparison of video codecs - as above, this article is redundant and less complete.Dialectric (talk) 16:26, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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.