Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vodei

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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 as unsourced. ~ trialsanderrors 00:08, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Vodei

Vodei (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

I first noticed this article when I saw users fighting back and forth on the reliability of forum posts as sources- there was a pretty heated debate about the software and neutrality. Anyway, I pointed out on the talk page that this article needs sources to be verified. I've pleaded for sources on the talk page and in edit summaries, saying the page could be deleted if none were presented. None have been, so it's my belief that the article does not meet WP:SOFTWARE and is not unverifiable. I couldn't find any independent reliable sources on Google either. Wafulz 00:53, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

If we delete it then someone is going to recreate it soon after, using the same sources. So what would be the point? And why does your google link go to the third results page? —Kn0wItAll 01:41, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
Whoops, the Google link was on the page I was viewing. I've fixed it. If the page is recreated, it will be deleted on site and protected from recreation. --Wafulz 01:49, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak Keep - On the other hand following WP:SOFTWARE "Software that can be proved to have a consistent number of users ......."" can be referenced in the WIKI. There do indeed appear to be paid users of this software. I agree its marginal, but I tend to take the view that if there is a community demand for a page, and the editing and talk page discussions evidence this demand, then a page should stay. Timharwoodx 01:44, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Are there any independent sources to verify anything though? Keep in mind there is currently a neutrality dispute on the page because nobody is presenting any sources about anything. --Wafulz 01:49, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
Yes. See SiteAdvisor —Kn0wItAll 04:39, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
This link has no actual information about the product other than stating its website doesn't have spyware. --Wafulz 05:45, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak Keep - I agree with Timharwoodx. Vodei has 193,000 results in Google. There is clearly interest. —Kn0wItAll 04:40, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
    • Google hits don't matter if there are no sources. WP:SOFTWARE is a proposed guideline, while WP:V is a strict policy. --Wafulz 05:45, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Delete Timharwoodx misquotes WP:SOFTWARE. Software with a consistent number of users "may be merged into the article describing their main functionality (for example, an article about a random disk editor may be merged into a section of disk editor.)" There's absolutely nothing in the guideline that would justify keeping this article! At best you could argue for a merge if you could find some appropriate article. Otherwise, this fails both WP:V and WP:SOFTWARE and should be deleted. Xtifr tälk 09:59, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment IMNSHO, Vodei is just a scheme to get you to download something that will then nag you for money. The software isn't particularly useful, and seems notable mostly for the number of people who are annoyed with it. As adware goes, it's actually fairly benign compared to some of the stuff out there. I really don't care if we delete this or not, but I want to point out that we have articles on Cydoor, Zango, and other such nuisances, so I don't see any reason why we can't have an article on this. -- Mcoder 11:02, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Is it worth letting the hounds loose to corral all of these, then, as Merge/Redirects to adware ? -- 62.25.109.196 11:33, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
  • The WIKI is a community project. I can find lots of pages that do not strictly follow the WIKI guidelines. The bin Laden pages reference unverified anonymous sources (the video tapes), for example, and give them precedence over written verfied interviews from bin Laden. But I don’t seem to be able to persuade anyone to do anything about it, despite the fact it’s a blatant violation of content guidelines. At the end of the day, the case is marginal, I agree, but if WIKI users want the page, and find it useful, why not? Is the server running out of space? BTW, I thought the page was just starting to come together and look reasonable. Timharwoodx 13:01, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
    • I should remind you that "If article A then article B" is not an argument here. This is about Vodei's verifiability and lack thereof. This case is in no way marginal- there are absolutely no reliable sources presented. --Wafulz 13:29, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
    • if WIKI users want the page, and find it useful, why not? — Because Wikipedia is not a free wiki hosting service. It is an encyclopaedia. And its name is Wikipedia, by the way. Uncle G 21:15, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Wikipedia is a great resource for computer professionals like myself. The article itseld needs tidied up, expanded with more technical detail and sources added. scope_creep 15:33, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment. That's what I've been saying for ages, but there are no sources. --Wafulz 16:47, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
    • "It needs sources added." is not a valid counterargument to the assertion that there are no sources. Your only argument is to provide some, not to simply assert "Sources need to be added.". Uncle G 21:15, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. If no one can cough up proper sources in a day or so, they aren't likely to ever be. wikipediatrix 22:06, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
  • This is not a real codec. Make people aware of this fact.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.64.232.162 (talk • contribs)
    • This statement is verifiable. The FAQ on vodei.com claims you need a "secondary codec" and instructs the reader to install ffdshow. The obvious implication is that Vodei just passes the video data to ffdshow for decoding. Thus ffdshow is the actual codec. --Mcoder 11:28, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
    • How is that relevant to this discussion?—Kn0wItAll 22:45, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
    • The point being that there are sources for at least some of the claims made. Most of this debate seems to be about the reliability of information posted on the inmatrix forum. So it's worth pointing out that, at least with respect to the file format, the Vodei developers statements seem to corroborate those claims. --Mcoder 03:34, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
    • So maybe the solution is to edit the article to contain only information found on both the official website and the forum? —Kn0wItAll 06:48, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
    • No. The official website is not independent, and the forum is not reliable at all. --Wafulz 13:24, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Not notable due to lack of links to any third party coverage (or to material backing up any other claim to notability). Sandstein 19:38, 21 November 2006 (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.