Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Blackbird (codec)

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 merge to Forscene. -- RoySmith (talk) 03:02, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Blackbird (codec)[edit]

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

The sources are 1 patent notice 2 patent notice 3 passing mention in a conference paper, 4 an WP:INTERVIEW with the company CEO, 5 routine coverage probable from a press release 6 ditto and starts with "Forbidden technologies ... is pleased to announce..." Fails WP:GNG Dom from Paris (talk) 17:10, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 17:14, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 17:14, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 17:14, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Article Forscene could be a suitable redirect target. However, it looks like unsourced advert... Pavlor (talk) 09:48, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge or redirect to Forscene as preferred WP:ATD. ~Kvng (talk) 21:40, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Forscene which runs on the Blackbird Codec has been nominated for an emmy (added reference). The codec world is small and blackbird has been used by multiple companies (including one in which I am involved). I find it incredible the article is being considered for deletion. What extra resources are required? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Seanjmcm (talk • contribs) 23:04, 14 March 2018 (UTC) — User:Seanjmcm (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Broad coverage in independent reliable sources. Eg. chapter in a book not written by people/company behind Blackbird Codec, review/article in published/online magazine etc. Pavlor (talk) 06:18, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A source has been added by an WP:SPA account but this is a company announcement and not independent so not useful to prove notability. Also the comment is a WP:TRIGGERED response. The fact that it is used by multiple companies including yours is neither here nor there, to be included in an encyclopedia there has to be in-depth coverage in independent reliable sources. The sources do not prove this. ~~There is nothing in the article about a book, is this a reference to the conference paper maybe?~~ It is not the fact there are sources that are published it is the quality of the information in the source and the source itself that are important, is it in depth independent coverage in a a relaible source? I think not hence the nomination. Dom from Paris (talk) 07:25, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Am I missing something? There are wikipedia entries on reality TV stars who do not have chapters in books written about them. Is this a requirement for codecs? There is a very small number of video codecs and Blackbird is one of them, in use since 2004. It is a commercial codec so will not be described in books to protect the IP. I added the emmy information in response to the notability remarks but it was removed as I hadn't written the entry very well. Is that a WP:TRIGGERED response, I am only responding to the feedback I have got and am not an wikipedia expert. I will look for something better to add by a third party but will need time as busy with my job. Should have something early next week. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Seanjmcm (talk • contribs) 17:12, 15 March 2018 (UTC) — Seanjmcm (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Please read WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS also I was replying to Pavlor's statement about a chapter written in a book about the subject and I have just realised that this was a reply to your question "What extra resources are needed" ...my error. Your response was that you use it and you find it incredible that it is up for deletion. This is a triggered response because it is a purely personal point of view. The Emmy nomination is 1/ not a national nomination 2/ for a company called MSG 3/For Scene Editing & Digital Distribution [1] There is no mention of the technology used in the nomination. The company looks like it is trying to piggyback on this nomination to gain notability as the source provided is from the company itself. Dom from Paris (talk) 17:59, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Seanjmcm: the justification behind our core inclusion criteria is that there has to be enough information published by reliable sources to write a quality article. There is often copious coverage of reality TV stars and other topics we may consider less important than Blackbird. From what I can tell, there is insufficient WP:INDEPENDENT coverage of the codec. Though strict adherents to policy may disagree, this doesn't, in my opinion, preclude us from adding coverage of the codec in the Forscene article and WP:REDIRECTing searches for the codec there. ~Kvng (talk) 18:42, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Hi, am a user of the Forscene platform, a software system built atop the proprietary Blackbird codec. Could I ask why the article RealVideo should not also be up for deletion as it would appear to be similarly bereft, as is the nature of proprietary codecs, of referenceable material in the public domain. Only has a couple of blogs and some company press releases. mk (talk) 13:15, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please see WP:OTHERSTUFF. ~Kvng (talk) 14:29, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Kvng: OK thanks that makes sense. Will have a look see and amend the article if I find anything. Hopefully it will not be removed prior to April 2018 as there may be more literature in the public domain following NAB. mk (talk) 21:58, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Mark Kilby: We usually get these decisions done in a week or two, or three. There are various ways to revisit when more evidence of notability is available. I can help you though that if and when we come to it. ~Kvng (talk) 22:12, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to Forscene#Blackbird. Insufficent media coverage to support a standalone article - fails WP:GNG. Honestly, though, there's not much meat that isn't there already. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 23:20, 19 March 2018 (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.