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. This article does not contain sufficient reliable references, independent of download providers or the software provider itself. Its notability has been consistently questioned in this and previous AFD's and the situation has changed little in that time. Seddon ^talk 19:35, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

BS.Player[edit]

BS.Player (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)

This was deleted at the first AfD per relevant policies and the deletion was upheld not once but twice at deletion review. Perhaps a year or so later, the original creator recreated it. However, no indication that this software satisfies relevant notability policies. For example, the "conduit" reference is merely published company press release. Several sources are not independent sources. Delete and salt. I decided against a G4 nomination due to the extended period of time this incarnation of the article has existed. Safiel (talk) 21:54, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:31, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:31, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete and salt: no significant coverage in independent secondary reliable sources. Downloads sites are not independent, the book lacks depth of coverage, and the rest of sources are not RS. My search didn't bring any usable sources either. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 23:34, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Apparently it is already salted. Given that this article was already userfied twice upon request, I believe the best thing to do is to move without redirect BS.Player to Draft:BS.Player and move-protect the draft. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 09:17, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • It was salted on what basis? 2 Afds with minimal participation? Szzuk (talk) 07:30, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yes, and rightfully so: these 2 AfDs were quite decisive, and neither encyclopedic article content nor reliable sources were presented to date. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 12:47, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        • The last Afd was 2 Keep and 2 Delete votes, how is that decisive? Szzuk (talk) 13:37, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
          • Please, see WP:NOTDEMOCRACY: last AfD was decisive because it revealed lack of arguments behind "keep" rationales. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 00:22, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
            • How do you weight the !votes?  Do you agree that a WP:NOQUORUM was within the scope of a reasonable close?  Unscintillating (talk) 02:00, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
              • Definitely not: there were 5 editors involved. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 07:46, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
                • Yet there were some extremely weak delete !votes.  Unscintillating (talk) 22:05, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
                  • These "extremely weak delete !votes" had a common very strong point: notability was not established. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 10:44, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
                    • Those !votes didn't even report the minimal work called for by WP:BEFORE D1.  What is your basis for saying that they were "strong"?  Unscintillating (talk) 02:04, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
                      • Nobody is required to report their performing of WP:BEFORE. My basis for "strong" is that these !votes used bullet-proof argument: the subject does not pass requirements of WP:GNG. It is a valid policy-based !vote, unlike the WP:ITSUSEFUL and WP:ITEXISTS clutter from "keep" !votes. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 00:15, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• • Now, now, Unscintillating. Discussing the closing admin is the worst thing to do in an AfD. Things like WP:BEFORE, !vote counting, etc. are minor points. When the article is that bad, there is little chance of it having survived ever. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 11:31, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If the article is so bad, why are you having to defend !votes that failed to report the minimum searches specified by WP:BEFORE D1?  Unscintillating (talk) 16:24, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You failed to see the point: nobody defends those !votes – there is no need to defend perfectly reasonable !votes. You are trying to discredit them by making up stuff, but nevertheless we continue to assume good faith and patiently explain you that you are mistaken. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 00:08, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What we are discussing here is Szzuk's point that the last AfD had minimal participation.  You've yet to agree that none of the delete !votes reported the minimal searches specified by WP:BEFORE D1.  There would be more consensus to build about the strength of those delete !votes, but that part of the conversation awaits your agreement on the initial point.  Unscintillating (talk) 04:07, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Cirt:.  FYI, Unscintillating (talk) 16:24, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. It is an advertisement for an obscure computer program, not an article. If it was respawned, delete again. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 15:01, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep  I'm not seeing the deletion problem here.  Multiple reviews in multiple languages define wp:notability.  Problems with inappropriate information in the article are fixable with editing.  Nominator did not mention that there are eleven inter-language Wikipedia articles.  For reasons of which I'm not aware, Wikipedia seems to have a bias against European software developers.  Unscintillating (talk) 19:52, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Hi. You should actually click on the so-called "reviews" and read them. CNET Download.com especially, does not fit the bill for a reliable source. The so-called reviewer just re-hashes the vendors' description. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 22:40, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• I just read the reviews. The German one and the French one are perfectly acceptable, it appears you didn't read them...Szzuk (talk) 07:30, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You mean this bare translation of official website into German and an overly short description in French which does not allow to disambiguate this software from Windows Media Player? What is unacceptable then? P.S.: I doubt that Editions ENI is an acceptable publisher actually; from their site I get an impression that they don't perform actual editorial oversight. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 12:47, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Davey2010 • (talk) 09:33, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Davey2010 • (talk) 19:45, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - The references are underwhelming: one 404 error, one list of K-Lite Mega Codec features (not the subject), one admitted press release, 2 from the subject's website, 2 reviews from 2008, 1 review from 2009, and one copy of one of the 2008 reviews. This is insufficient to show notability.--Rpclod (talk) 20:57, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• What defines sufficiency?  I thought sufficiency was two good articles.  Unscintillating (talk) 21:19, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• A source with a 404 error is still a source, just harder to find.  Unscintillating (talk) 23:22, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• There is no evidence in the !vote that the editor has looked for sources.  Unscintillating (talk) 23:22, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• As per WP:NTEMP, wp:notability is not temporary.  A source from 2008 has the same standing as a source from 2014.  Unscintillating (talk) 23:22, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. I used to use this program 10+ years ago, it used to be very popular. Szzuk (talk) 21:09, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete—Not enough in the way of WP:RS to establish notability. That said, I appreciate the passion of the keep !votes. Lesser Cartographies (talk) 14:04, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Reviews added to the article are cursory at best. They are not enough to be significant coverage. And WP:NOTADVERT is a higher order policy that takes precedence over notability. When it fails, discussing notability is moot. It is gaming the system to write an article that looks completely like an advertisement or product page, then add a reception section containing some so-called "reviews" (yet another advertisement tactic) to prevent the article from deletion by reciting WP:NTEMP. Notable subjects have impact. This program does not. Fleet Command (talk) 08:18, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete for lack of significant coverage in independent reliable sources. Fails WP:GNG. --Bejnar (talk) 22:13, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - software article of unclear notability, lacking significant coverage in reliable sources. The refs provided are download sites and very brief reviews/PR, as noted above. Dialectric (talk) 03:13, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Online software encyclopaedia Softpedia has reviewed this product before, see [1] and [2].--RekishiEJ (talk) 15:32, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Hi. We are aware of what you are showing and that is not an in-depth review. Softpedia writes in-depth reviews in separate review pages. This is just a cursory review that Softpedia employees write as part of their job. See Zoner Photo Studio for example, that has both kind. In addition, even if it was in-depth, GNG requires more than just one coverage.

Best regards,

Codename Lisa (talk) 16:42, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• The first sentence of the first source listed says, "BS.Player has been around for longer than we can remember and while it’s got major competitors, it managed to survive somehow in such a cut-throat market."  That is exactly the kind of in-depthness that we are looking from a reviewer to satisfy WP:GNG.  By your own admission, this was written by a paid staffer, so is professionally written.  Unscintillating (talk) 18:28, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• You must be joking. This "review" barely describes the subject. "In-depthness" that we are looking for is enough information to at least identify the subject, and this "review" would be still valid if "BS.Player" was replaced with name of any other video player. But even if we disregard the depth of coverage, these two reviews are from the same source – Softpedia. Furthermore, Softpedia hosts downloads of this player and earns by providing such "review" pages with ads, so it is nowhere close to being independent from subject. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 23:40, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Then there is this sentence from the 2nd source, "...BS.Player...is one of the big guys of this software category."  Unscintillating (talk) 00:25, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Is it your position that media that sell ads are not WP:RS?  Unscintillating (talk) 00:29, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• No, it's my position that media who earn from hosting downloads and describing them are not intedependent. Unscintillating, please, stop this WP:IDONTHEARYOU thing. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 06:31, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The community isn't saying anything to unscintillating, you are. Szzuk (talk) 08:06, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting comment.

1. Apparently, every editor in this discussion (with exception of you and unscintillating, I suppose) does not belong to the community according to your opinion. Or maybe you just did not bother reading discussion?
2. The community as whole communicates this simple idea in WP:GNG, WP:MILL, WP:IMPACT and numerous other documents.

But you can't be bothered with reading, can you? — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 11:01, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't realise policy documents could talk!Szzuk (talk) 14:20, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Very productive discussion... — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 17:55, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete- most of the reviews are from download sites that offer this software, thus failing the "independence" requirement. The amount of reliable, independent sourcing is not sufficient IMO to justify this article. I furthermore agree with User:FleetCommand that bombarding a blatantly promotional article with cursory run-of-the-mill reviewlets to evade deletion under WP:SPAM is just gaming the system and should be discouraged. Reyk _YO! 06:11, 11 August 2014 (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.