Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/FFmpeg hosting service

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. Courcelles 23:41, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

FFmpeg hosting service[edit]

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

Unsourced article. No evidence of notability given. Mostly original research. Not discussed by reliable secondary sources. Tagged on 2009 and not repaired since then. Marokwitz (talk) 10:54, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 19:13, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In my defense, I found at least 2M websites which include this term, which is why I wrote the article. The problem is, most of the top results are advertisements for those services, which I'm loathe to include as references due to WP policy on such links. I've put in a few refs now, but I'm not entirely sure that they're the most comprehensive sources. --Toussaint (talk) 00:57, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No evidence of independent coverage required by WP:GNG. FuFoFuEd (talk) 03:48, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Video hosting service. FFmpeg hosting service doesn't satisfy GNG for a standalone article at the moment, but it is reliably verifiable as a sub-topic, because it is a service which hosting providers now compete on, for example [1] and plenty of other primary sources. And Video hosting service could use some RS sourcing from some of these sources. --Lexein (talk) 09:05, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no reliable coverage to justify standalone coverage. LibStar (talk) 06:17, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, actually, that many multiple independent WP:PRIMARY sources are reliable, and good enough for a "merge," rather than deletion. Reconsider? --Lexein (talk) 19:59, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

no. LibStar (talk) 03:09, 22 July 2011 (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.