Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rtmpdump

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. (non-admin closure) Dori ☾Talk ☯ Contribs☽ 22:20, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Rtmpdump

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

This is not a notable program or code by any sense of the word. —Ryulong (琉竜) 09:36, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Very, very weak keep — Tough call. The article is obviously poorly written and ought to be revamped by someone with expertise in the field of computer sciences (or who is otherwise familiar with that application), but a single Google search shows several independent sources that demonstrate the moderately widespread use of this peripheral. I'm open to reconsidering this position if someone with more knowledge relating to the subject asserts otherwise. Kurtis (talk) 10:03, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It's highly prevalent in Google, but are any of those sources reliable? I am fairly certain that is a no.—Ryulong (琉竜) 10:05, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I'm not sure. That's why I'm open to changing my mind if someone with more knowledge of the subject can convince me that none of the sources are reliable and notability cannot be established. Kurtis (talk) 10:51, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Number and diversity of independent RS included for notability has increased. --Lexein (talk) 16:18, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I found and added three sources, PCLinuxOS, with a decent tutorial and review of the software package, and two academic research paper (use case mentions), and rewrote the lead para. Domain experts can be considered reliable. Based on this, source-ability has been shown. Since WP:BEFORE suggests not AfD'ing if sources can reasonably be found, or can reasonably be expected to be findable, I feel comfortable keeping. I'm checking out some blogs and Usenet postings (Google groups) for domain expertise. If it's deleted, please userfy under my userpage. --Lexein (talk) 10:33, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep: I suppose it squeeks by WP:NSOFT. But in truth I could just as easily live with a merge to RTMP. -- BenTels (talk) 11:30, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with RTMP. Mythpage88 (talk) 01:45, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. 19:57, 19 August 2012 (UTC) • Gene93k (talk) 19:57, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per sources in the article, combined with unambiguous notability claim from Adobe and technical significance notion of WP:NSOFT. I'm not opposed to merging it to RTMP outcome, as there isn't much to discuss in the article though. I only prefer keeping it separate because building a collection of software in the article about protocol isn't particularly bright idea IMO. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 13:24, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Incorporated the above ChillingEffects source. Also added German PC Magazine about the removal from Sourceforge. And added the mplayerhq.hu announcement (per WP:SELFPUB) about hosting. --Lexein (talk) 16:07, 20 August 2012 (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.