Talk:Cook Codec

This page was proposed for deletion by JayCubby (talk · contribs) on 31 January 2025.

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Professional sound production, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of sound recording and reproduction on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Professional sound productionWikipedia:WikiProject Professional sound productionTemplate:WikiProject Professional sound productionProfessional sound production
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Computer science: Computing

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Computer science, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Computer science related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Computer scienceWikipedia:WikiProject Computer scienceTemplate:WikiProject Computer scienceComputer science

???

This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

This article is supported by WikiProject Computing.

This article has been marked as needing immediate attention.

Things you can help WikiProject Computer science with:

Here are some tasks awaiting attention:

Article requests :
- Requested articles/Applied arts and sciences/Computer science, computing, and Internet
Cleanup :
- Computer science articles needing attention
- Computer science articles needing expert attention
Copyedit :
- Computing
Expand :
- Computer science
Infobox :
- Computer science articles without infoboxes
Maintain :
- Timeline of computing 2020–present
Photo :
- Find pictures for the biographies of computer scientists (see List of computer scientists)
- Computing articles needing images
Stubs :
- Computer science stubs
Unreferenced :
- WikiProject Computer science/Unreferenced BLPs
Project-related :
- Tag all relevant articles in Category:Computer science and sub-categories with {{WikiProject Computer science}}

Proposing merge to RealAudio

Proposing merge to RealAudio, which mentions cook codec. Not finding significant coverage via Google, Wikipedia Library, and SpringerLink, though the codec is often mentioned as a security vulnerability. Cielquiparle (talk) 16:43, 25 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Kvng What do you think? Cielquiparle (talk) 16:45, 25 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You say it is often mentioned and also no significant coverage. Those are potentially incompatible statements. Can you elaborate with examples why you think both are true? ~Kvng (talk) 16:54, 25 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Kvng Because they are security vulnerability reports like this one and this one. Perhaps we could try to build an article based on security vulnerability reports, but not finding much to verify all the other claims in the article as it currently stands. Cielquiparle (talk) 21:42, 25 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merging to RealAudio would be a preferred WP:ATD if someone is insistent on trying to delete this. I'd prefer to try and improve the article. I'd hope we could find at least primary sourcing to verify the FFmpeg and Rockbox implementations. ~Kvng (talk) 23:37, 25 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe the security vulnerability reports count as secondary sources, and without any additional sources, I doubt SIGCOV is met. Would favor redirecting. Clarinetguy097 (talk) 05:52, 28 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There seems to be more mentions of this if you search it under the other names (RealAudio G2). That said, I wouldn't oppose a merge or redirect to RealAudio if no additional coverage turns up. There's a blog post that goes more in-depth on Cook, but it's not really a usable source [1]

The documentation for ffmpeg would work as a primary source: [2], under 2.4 Audio Codecs ARandomName123 (talk)^{Ping me!} 01:15, 29 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I went ahead and did it since the discussion has stalled. FaviFake (talk) 15:37, 3 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

FaviFake, stalled discussion is not a reason to proceed. I'm going to imagine you agree with the others and called it a WP:CONSENSUS. ~Kvng (talk) 16:08, 3 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

called it a WP:CONSENSUS.
Where did I call it a consensus? I performed a bold merge, which i've now undone. I've listed this discussion at WP:CR. FaviFake (talk) 16:14, 3 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The WP:CONSENSUS was in my imagination. I'm trying to be charitable. The opportunity for WP:BOLD has passed if there is a discussion in progress. At least join the conversation before making a move. ~Kvng (talk) 16:51, 3 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@FaviFake we'll have an easier time getting a clear consensus read if you'd state your opinion. We can assume you support the merge but since consensus is not a vote count, it would be helpful if you explained why. ~Kvng (talk) 03:40, 4 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't looked at this enough to decide to !vote one way or another. FaviFake (talk) 16:22, 4 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Feedback from New Page Review process

I left the following feedback for the creator/future reviewers while reviewing this article: Thank you for your work on this article. Please add more sources - primarily secondary sources - and footnotes to back up each claim with a reliable source. Please also establish notability as per WP:NPRODUCT. Thanks and have a great day!

Mariamnei (talk) 13:29, 4 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]