Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/TAK (audio codec)
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 Keep. Walton Need some help? 16:53, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
TAK (audio codec)[edit]
- TAK (audio codec) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
Notability not demonstrated. No secondary sources. --Pjacobi 17:33, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I would call it's outstanding performance noteable. There are comparisons – even one on the official FLAC homepage – that prove it. --Speck-Made 16:09, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- More on http://wiki.hydrogenaudio.org/index.php?title=TAK and http://synthetic-soul.co.uk/comparison/lossless/ 80.203.49.34 18:40, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - has comparison tests, and is actually available, though with limited application support. Ace of Risk 22:11, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for your opinions, but do you have secondary sources? That the existence of the software is acknowledged by inclusion in benchmarks is really good first step, but IMHO far from an article in an IEEE journal or conference talk etc. --Pjacobi 22:17, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Did FLAC, WavPack, Monkey's Audio, TrueAudio or OptimFrog ever have that? What chance do they have to ever have that? --Speck-Made 01:12, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- For sure: http://scholar.google.de/scholar?q=FLAC+lossless&hl=en&lr=&btnG=Search --Pjacobi 07:50, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- None at all: neither here nor there (dunno where else to look). And the others? Too lazy to check... (We have articles for each and more...) But that's not exactly the point for me – like you may probably guess... --Speck-Made 21:27, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- E.g. http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/xpl/freeabs_all.jsp?arnumber=1330809 --Pjacobi 22:43, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- None at all: neither here nor there (dunno where else to look). And the others? Too lazy to check... (We have articles for each and more...) But that's not exactly the point for me – like you may probably guess... --Speck-Made 21:27, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- For sure: http://scholar.google.de/scholar?q=FLAC+lossless&hl=en&lr=&btnG=Search --Pjacobi 07:50, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Did FLAC, WavPack, Monkey's Audio, TrueAudio or OptimFrog ever have that? What chance do they have to ever have that? --Speck-Made 01:12, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for your opinions, but do you have secondary sources? That the existence of the software is acknowledged by inclusion in benchmarks is really good first step, but IMHO far from an article in an IEEE journal or conference talk etc. --Pjacobi 22:17, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - Notable for its very strong performance. References need to be added to the article though.
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mailer Diablo 11:37, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I'm puzzled how a successful google scholar search finding articles on a competitor of this company proves notability for the company.DGG 01:58, 9 May 2007 (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.