Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/AdvanceCOMP

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. There is consensus that this should not be a standalone article. There is no consensus on a redirect or which article it should target. This close does not preclude a redirect being created - that can be discussed and settled outside of this AfD. Opening a discussion on a potential target talk page would be a good start. SpinningSpark 19:26, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

AdvanceCOMP[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

No third party sources, all of those I could find were passing mentions or listings. Black Kite (talk) 23:50, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Yes, I believe Black Kite is right. Deletion is one of our options. Believe me, I've recently copyedited it! I know! Waysidesc (talk) 23:55, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 00:01, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - restore original valid redirect, since it is mentioned in the article, as ATD. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 01:24, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- I have deleted the original bogus material from Deflate#Encoder implementations. A redirection would not be valid. Waysidesc (talk) 01:47, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Deflate#Encoder implementations. Thanks go to Black Kite for initiating this AfD--better to discuss here than to edit war. I originally redirected this as an alternative to deletion in response to a PROD. My reasoning was that there is some modest third-party coverage for this project; Softonic has a short review. This, along with evidence of inclusion of AdvanceCOMP in several Linux distributions, was IMO enough verifiability for brief coverage somewhere in WP. As this is also a plausible search term, I thought a redirect to Deflate#Encoder implementations, where it was mentioned, was a reasonable target. I don't understand the hoax, but if there is some inaccuracy in that section, let's fix that and add a citation to back it up. --{{u|Mark viking}} {Talk} 01:46, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- I have deleted the original bogus material from Deflate#Encoder implementations. A redirection would not be valid. Waysidesc (talk) 01:47, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Waysidesc, Mark viking: would it be possible to improve the wording? AdvanceComp utilities are using 7-Zip's (indepentant) Deflate backend to do the work. (There's no hoax involved; an equivalent situation would eg. a command-line piece of video software calling ffmpeg to do some MPEG-compatible video encoding; it's multiple specialised front-ends to the same backend software library). —Sladen (talk) 00:03, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No. AdvanceCOMP is not a Deflate implementation. As you said it yourself, it uses something else. FFmpeg is good example: Millions of apps use it right now, including Visual Studio Code. But we do not list those apps under H.264 implementations. Even listing FFmpeg under H.264 implementation would be wrong because FFmpeg uses libx264 itself. Waysidesc (talk) 00:42, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Waysidesc:. Not sure what the disagreement is… AdvanceCOMP is a bunch of format-specific front-ends for locating a Deflate stream in an existing .zip/PNG/etc and passing that stream through to an existing external library for attempted re-encoding/re-compression. Is the suggestion of a redirect to that existing external library reasonable? —Sladen (talk) 10:14, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Redirection alone gives the wrong message to the reader.

Redirection plus mention might fix the message issue. But why list one non-notable front-end and not list dozens of others? PeaZip also uses 7-Zip, so do Inno Setup and Universal Unpacker.

Deletion is the best. Waysidesc (talk) 06:03, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ Redirect for the same reasons as when I PRODded this last summer. The lack of sources remain an issue and per the above, the redirect is an issue to the validity of the relevance to the target article. Star Mississippi 03:54, 6 January 2022 (UTC) ETA: updated to redirect per Sladen's clarification & verification this isn't a hoax. I was fine with Mark viking's redirect in lieu of my Prod and would be fine with it now. Star Mississippi 01:38, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Zero independent sources now. From looking over the article history, there have NEVER been any independent sources, and certainly no SIGCOV or hint thereof. And this blatantly promotional article's been up for over seventeen years? Ravenswing 08:09, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - insufficient sources to demonstrate significant coverage and hence does not meet notability guidelines for inclusion. Such-change47 (talk) 09:42, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, it's probably more a case of a semi-frequently-used "boring command-line utility" than a case of malicious promotion. Debian popularity contest data shows it is deployed on about 1% of Debian systems.[1] with a peak in ~2014. It gets a couple of hundred reads a month; if this is heading towards Deletion then a redirect/merge to 7-Zip (a part of which is the backend software library that the AdvanceCOMP utilities rely on). —Sladen (talk) 22:22, 6 January 2022 (UTC) full disclosure: I did a drive-by edit in Special:Diff/86447890 (back in 2006!…) when working through a bunch of compression-related articles—the article seems to have remained in roughly the same state since.[reply]

7-Zip would be a fine redirect target as well. --{{u|Mark viking}} {Talk} 23:00, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Really not enough RS here. Deathlibrarian (talk) 05:56, 8 January 2022 (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.