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.
This article is one part advertisement and one part a product manual. Wikipedia is not supposed to be either. The only reliable sources that are independent of the subject itself in this article are not about the subject of this article. 😆 (One is a PCWorld article that is used to mentioned a similarly named product, another is a Gizmodo article that talks about Xbox 360.)
The bulk of its sources are from DivX.com, the official website. After that, there are community websites like AfterDawn and Doom9.
I myself tried to search for reliable sources about DivX. I did find one PCMag.com encyclopedia entry. Perhaps the DivX codec once had an impact in our lives, but an article about DivX, Inc.'s media players, converters and every other failed product is unwarranted. Let's nuke it and start over. (Or just nuke it.) flowing dreams (talk page) 06:33, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is a WP:NOTCLEANUP case; there's no way we're deleting an article about a major video codec (even if it's declined), no matter how many ADVERT issues it may have, but the article does need some help otherwise. Nate•(chatter)06:46, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Do you base your votes on a hatnote? I read the whole article before nominating it. The tiny lead section and the Codec Pack section briefly mention the codec, which must be the champion of the article, but there is literally nothing in the article about the codec itself. As I said, the article is about the file format, and then the various apps that DivX Inc. produced. flowing dreams (talk page) 07:59, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm saying in no way is this article being deleted. At most we will definitely cut down the PR copy and improve everything else, but on the whole we rarely remove an article about a well-known file extension or video codec through the AfD process, especially when improvement is very likely with this nom. Nate•(chatter)08:16, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The article is not (primarily) about a video codec or a format. DivX is neither a codec nor a format. As the introductory sentence says, DivX is a brand name for a range of commercial products created by the DivX company. Like the DivX Codec (the name of the codec is DivX Codec, not DivX—by the way, the DivX Codec itself was not nearly as significant as people believe it was; the really popular MPEG-4 codecs used in the real world were not created by DivX, but people were just calling them, and even more significantly, the MPEG-4 ASPvideo coding format itself and the AVI container format "DivX" out of ignorance), DivX Converter, DivX Player, the DivX profiles for hardware player certification etc. And this is what the article is about—the whole range of DivX products. For sure, many of them were failed products and services (like Stage6), but that does not mean DivX as a whole is not notable.—J. M. (talk) 15:43, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Despite the massive, incorrigible confusion about the meaning of the word DivX among the general public (99% of things that people think is or was DivX is, in fact, not DivX—the real DivX that the article is about was far less significant, their business model was mainly based on exploiting the famous name and the confusion about its meaning), it definitely deserves its own article, it is undoubtedly notable, with plenty of third-party sources available. But yes, the article could definitely benefit from additional secondary sources.—J. M. (talk) 15:28, 14 October 2019 (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.
