Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/MKVToolNix

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. Nakon 04:27, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

MKVToolNix

MKVToolNix (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

Not notable. Mostly first party sources, with the exceptions of brief mention in a tutorial, and promotional pieces on Softpedia which anyway is not a reliable secondary source. JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 19:40, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If Matroska/MKV is notable, then MKVToolNix is also notable. And like ODF is not merged with LO, these two should stay separate. P.S. I have added non-primary sources. Absolwent (talk) 05:50, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn’t work like that. Per WP:OTHERSTUFF whether another article exists, and so its topic is notable, is not a reason to keep this one. Certainly the status of two very different topics (Open Document Format and Libre Office ?) is entirely irrelevant.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 06:02, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It is format and tool(s) to manipulate the format analogy... Each of this particular pair is notable (not that there is a rule for that, just in the world of Matroska, if you decide that MKV is important then MKVToolNix is important, even if you never use it). The second issue was incorporation of the tool description into the format description, so if you look at ODF, PDF, etc. not only at MKV you will realize that it makes sense to have articles for tools separate from articles for formats. Absolwent (talk) 07:40, 8 February 2015 (UTC) P.S. What in your opinion article or MKVToolNix are missing?[reply]

Nonsense. I could write my own MKV processing utilities in a few days. Would that make them notable? No. Only reliable third-party sources would. — Keφr 20:04, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your not yet existing MKV tools are not 11 years old in 19 languages, and have not yet made it into admittedly obscure Apple patents, a Forensics book, Linux Journal articles, an "official" matroska.org site, reputable (counting article links) video software sites, the unanimously unreliable but nevertheless often referenced Softpedia, wikidata, frwiki, and a Commons help page. The help page was the reason for this requested article; together with mkvmerge it's useful for a few other pages. I've removed "stub" after adding the infobox, the topic is covered, only the genre is still TBDfixed. The alexa ranking 110,537 globally surprised me. –Be..anyone (talk) 10:55, 9 February 2015 (UTC) Updated: Be..anyone (talk) 14:51, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:25, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. For the record, this tool is my favorite. But its article? Unfortunately, it is written like an advertisement. The article also fails to show significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject. Oh, and Absolwent, notability is not inherited. Sorry. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 05:07, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't buy the advertisement argument, sorry. Articles can be rewritten to be more informative and less advertorial, and they don't need to be deleted for that. // coldacid (talk|contrib) 17:07, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge Keep and expand. After checking the references for the article, I no longer believe that this is non-notable given the reviews by non-affiliated sources, as well as the tools being cited in two different technology patents from Apple. There are certainly issues with content that need to be corrected (i.e. make it less of an advertisement) but I don't see that as grounds for deletion -- just grounds for fixing the article. Merge into the main Matroska article, or delete and add a section in that article about MKVToolNix. I hate the deletionist attitude towards non-notable articles, but honestly, the only people who'll even be looking up MKVToolNix on here are people who already know the software and just want to see what Wikipedia has to say about it. // coldacid (talk|contrib) 17:09, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose per WP:NOTADVERT! I myself am the developer of an antivirus program and a backup solution. You don't see me advertising them in antivirus and backup articles. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 02:00, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  I'm curious where you see "advertizing". I never used this software, and I'm not normally in the habit to write articles about stuff I don't know, this was a special case for a decenct link on a Commons help page I care about. Same idea as Microsoft Download Manager, but that's software I actually use. I'm also not sure that this article needs any kind of expand, the references should be actually trimmed to a minimum required for notability as determined in this AfD. –Be..anyone (talk) 01:07, 17 February 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.