Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/AVS Video Editor
- 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 no consensus. Hersfold (t/a/c) 18:09, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- AVS Video Editor (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Non-notable software, unreferenced article, created by a single-purpose-account (see User contributions: Edavisee), most likely to advertise the product Regression Tester (talk) 14:16, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per WP:VERIFY and WP:GNG. No evidence this product "has received significant coverage in reliable sources." — Satori Son 14:42, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:49, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: Per [1], [2], and [3]. Joe Chill (talk) 23:41, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Do you feel any of those qualify as "signficant coverage." I'm just not seeing it. — Satori Son 14:43, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: Per [4], [5], and [6]. Abdulmiller (talk) 07:08, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: I can't see significant coverage in reliable sources. As for the comment above by Abdulmiller, pointing to the reviews—firstly, the first link is an anonymous discussion, not a review. Web forums, chatrooms or neighborhood gossip really do not qualify as reliable sources for Wikipedia. Any spammer can post anything like this in any public discussion. Secondly, TopShareware.com, CoreDownload.com or iSoftwareReviews.com cannot be taken seriously, they are not reputable sources. Wikipedia requires "reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy". Now, TopShareware.com or iSoftwareReviews.com do not even have an "About Us" section anywhere—that is, they don't even say who they are. They don't even have an e-mail address, only a contact form. This is a common feature of hoax websites. In other words, any group of spammers can run a "SuperDuperDownload.com" website and "review" their products there. And this article, just like its AVS Video Converter cousin, is obviously self-serving, created by a single-purpose account only to advertise the product. In fact, it belongs to a circle of nearly identical products that their author keeps spamming just about every multimedia-related Wikipedia article with.—J. M. (talk) 00:46, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: sorry to hear what you said about my comment, maybe you can see significant coverage in reliable sources on the "References" of the article. And about the first link, I don't understand what you said("Any spammer can post anything like this in any public discussion."), Because these comments date is from 2006-2008, I think it is from customer's words, it is fair with fact-checking and accuracy, so I post it here, I swear by Almighty God that I will tell the truth. and the topshareware.com is online since 2002, Alexa Traffic Rank:984, and CoreDownload.com or iSoftwareReviews.com review is from their editor, I don't know why "they are not reputable sources". and I noticed that you give Nominated the article for deletion AVS Video Converter on 26 February 2010, but when the article added the significant coverage in reliable sources, you keep it. Now this article added what you want, why not treat this article like that, and if you think this article is obviously self-serving, created by a single-purpose account only to advertise the product.But why most of similar articles Total video converter,Prism Video Converter, Emicsoft DVD Ripper, Aimersoft DVD Ripper, ImTOO DVD Ripper, Movavi Video Converter can be keep? I don't see any significant coverage from these articles. — Abdulmiller 04:15, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Wikipedia is based on file pillars, and the basic rules are non-negotiable. One of the most basic policies is verifiability, which means citing reliable sources. No, internet discussions do not qualify as reliable sources and it is clearly explained there—see the self-published sources section. Anonymous web forum posts are not verifiable, anyone is free to post anything, so I can say "This is the best piece of software on earth!" in any discussion forum (in fact, this is exactly what spammers do all the time) and nobody in their right mind would use this as any kind of encyclopedic proof. The year/date is completely irrelevant, too. As for the other products—this discussion is about the AVS Video Editor, so let's keep it on-topic. The "similar articles exist, too, so what about them?" argument should be avoided in AfD discussions. The other products will have their own AfD discussions very soon.—J. M. (talk) 04:59, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: I did't see someone say "This is the best piece of software on earth!" on the topshareware review, I think that it has the ability to divide spam and truth, maybe my review is tiny prove, maybe you would believe Joe Chill or you can view "References" for get more info Abdulmiller 14:09, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: It is completely irrelevant what anyone says in that discussion. Anynomous internet discussions are not acceptable as sources in Wikipedia and it is clearly described in the Wikipedia rules. Period.—J. M. (talk) 16:43, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: I did't see someone say "This is the best piece of software on earth!" on the topshareware review, I think that it has the ability to divide spam and truth, maybe my review is tiny prove, maybe you would believe Joe Chill or you can view "References" for get more info Abdulmiller 14:09, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Wikipedia is based on file pillars, and the basic rules are non-negotiable. One of the most basic policies is verifiability, which means citing reliable sources. No, internet discussions do not qualify as reliable sources and it is clearly explained there—see the self-published sources section. Anonymous web forum posts are not verifiable, anyone is free to post anything, so I can say "This is the best piece of software on earth!" in any discussion forum (in fact, this is exactly what spammers do all the time) and nobody in their right mind would use this as any kind of encyclopedic proof. The year/date is completely irrelevant, too. As for the other products—this discussion is about the AVS Video Editor, so let's keep it on-topic. The "similar articles exist, too, so what about them?" argument should be avoided in AfD discussions. The other products will have their own AfD discussions very soon.—J. M. (talk) 04:59, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: sorry to hear what you said about my comment, maybe you can see significant coverage in reliable sources on the "References" of the article. And about the first link, I don't understand what you said("Any spammer can post anything like this in any public discussion."), Because these comments date is from 2006-2008, I think it is from customer's words, it is fair with fact-checking and accuracy, so I post it here, I swear by Almighty God that I will tell the truth. and the topshareware.com is online since 2002, Alexa Traffic Rank:984, and CoreDownload.com or iSoftwareReviews.com review is from their editor, I don't know why "they are not reputable sources". and I noticed that you give Nominated the article for deletion AVS Video Converter on 26 February 2010, but when the article added the significant coverage in reliable sources, you keep it. Now this article added what you want, why not treat this article like that, and if you think this article is obviously self-serving, created by a single-purpose account only to advertise the product.But why most of similar articles Total video converter,Prism Video Converter, Emicsoft DVD Ripper, Aimersoft DVD Ripper, ImTOO DVD Ripper, Movavi Video Converter can be keep? I don't see any significant coverage from these articles. — Abdulmiller 04:15, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mike Cline (talk) 01:54, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Joe Chill's sources sell me. They're not the most non-trivial I've ever seen, exactly, but they're pretty good. The book sources, in particular the third one, are encouraging, and in conjunction with a review from a good source I'm satisfied that the subject is notable. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 10:02, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - I can't read (and therefore can't evaluate the reliability of) the two book sources as they're not in English (don't even know what language/s they're in). Without those two, I would definitely say "delete". All the other sources seem to be either self-published by the company or user reviews (not WP:RS). cmadler (talk) 18:19, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - The PCPro reference is neither self-published nor a user review, just in case that has any impact on your thinking. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 18:45, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Just like Satori Son, I don't think a short mini overview on a single website counts as "significant coverage". This does not make the software notable IMO.—J. M. (talk) 18:58, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - That's not the only coverage Joe Chill supplied. I would agree with you without hesitation, otherwise. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 19:00, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Addendum to above comment: aside from the two books, which I don't feel that I can evaluate, the rest of the coverage is self-published, user reviews, or otherwise trivial coverage. cmadler (talk) 19:52, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - That's not the only coverage Joe Chill supplied. I would agree with you without hesitation, otherwise. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 19:00, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Just like Satori Son, I don't think a short mini overview on a single website counts as "significant coverage". This does not make the software notable IMO.—J. M. (talk) 18:58, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - The PCPro reference is neither self-published nor a user review, just in case that has any impact on your thinking. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 18:45, 12 March 2010 (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.