- 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. Numerically there are more editors advocating keeping this article. However, the complaint that the article lacks independent sourcing has not been rebutted, and I have not been able to find appropriate souces myself. I am happy to save a version of this in an editor's user space. If they are able to locate appropriate sources, I would be willing to restore the article. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 15:22, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Snow (codec) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)
Non-notable codec. No sources other than primary sources and self-documentation. Miami33139 (talk) 22:55, 24 January 2009 (UTC) Can I please ask the closing administrator to note the two current keep votes are jokes, and not actually discussion. Miami33139 (talk) 02:38, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 11:55, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - I can find blogs and wikis but no coverage in reliable sources. It may be notable in the future not right now. -- Whpq (talk) 15:57, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. WP:NOT paper. --Mihai cartoaje (talk) 00:43, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- An argument which completely fails to address the issues presented for deletion, and makes no positive claim to address an issue for preservation. Miami33139 (talk) 01:29, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Suggesting speedy keep per WP:SNOW. --Mihai cartoaje (talk) 02:12, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- How so? Ifg anything, this article stands a snowball's chance in hell of being kept with it's lack of sourcing. -- Whpq (talk) 02:24, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - WP:BRRR AndysCrogz1 (talk) 01:30, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Indented !vote from an indefinitely blocked user. (See user's talk page) --Patar knight - chat/contributions 18:42, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:06, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete unless independent reliable sources are found. WP cannot be a listing of every piece of software in existence, but only of the ones which have verifiable information about them. If there are reliable sources, then given the amount of coverage in blogs as well, this would probably meet WP:N, but at the moment it fails WP:V. --N Shar (talk · contribs) 01:16, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: Fails WP:N. Schuym1 (talk) 00:00, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: Wikipedia seems to have many pages about free software, and I find it very useful when looking for information about free software programs (even the little-known ones). Many of them have few sources, but that does not generally impair the quality of these articles. Through WP: IAR, I believe that the rules can and should be relaxed a bit to help document the vast body of free software. This particular article is well-structured and well-written. I am confident that new sources will be added as they become available. It is useful and should be kept. To delete it would be to remove a lot of excellent work. Peteweez (talk) 19:42, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: Snow is a codec, not just a piece of software. It is noteworthy because it was the only free wavelet based video codec until Dirac came about. Wavelet based codecs are supposedly the next step in the evolution of video and still image encoding (JPEG2000 is also wavelet based, the old JPEG and current MPEG codecs are DCT based). This codec is history in the making, and you can already tell. This article should be expanded, not deleted. And the fact that this article is not just a link and reference fest should be taken as a good thing. Wikipedia is more than collecting references to other sources, new things start happening in Wikipedia before they hit other, slower, more mainstream sources. 16:29, 31 January 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.37.170.58 (talk)
- Comment. Wikipedia is actually about collecting references, to a large extent. You might want to read the policies on verifiability and original research -- while it may be true that "new things start happening in Wikipedia," that's really not supposed to happen. That said, I'll look for some information on Snow as a wavelet codec in particular, and see if I can manage to find some reliable sources. --N Shar (talk · contribs) 22:44, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The more I look, the more I am concerned about this article. This codec is clearly used by a substantial number of people and projects, but I can't find any reliable sources that document it, to the extent that I can't even confirm the assertion that it was the first free wavelet-based video codec. (By comparison, there are many sources for Dirac, but this is a bit unfair because the latter was developed by the BBC.) This is somewhat bewildering. --N Shar (talk · contribs) 22:59, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Any geek can slap together a UI, call it a project and pull in some other open source libraries and get google hits. Everybody wants to make a media player and brag about supporting every codec ever devised. That is why these things are not notable even if they have "substantial number of people and projects" We have entirely too much un-referenced documentation on software based simply on the assertion that it is available for download. Miami33139 (talk) 20:31, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The more I look, the more I am concerned about this article. This codec is clearly used by a substantial number of people and projects, but I can't find any reliable sources that document it, to the extent that I can't even confirm the assertion that it was the first free wavelet-based video codec. (By comparison, there are many sources for Dirac, but this is a bit unfair because the latter was developed by the BBC.) This is somewhat bewildering. --N Shar (talk · contribs) 22:59, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Wikipedia is actually about collecting references, to a large extent. You might want to read the policies on verifiability and original research -- while it may be true that "new things start happening in Wikipedia," that's really not supposed to happen. That said, I'll look for some information on Snow as a wavelet codec in particular, and see if I can manage to find some reliable sources. --N Shar (talk · contribs) 22:44, 31 January 2009 (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.