Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/AVS Video Editor (3rd nomination)

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. Sandstein 07:21, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

AVS Video Editor

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

As a result of Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2015 July 3, this recreation of a previously deleted article is made subject to a deletion discussion. Please refer to that discussion for reasons why it should be deleted or retained. This is a procedural nomination, I am neutral. Sandstein 07:33, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:47, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:47, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

keep article is not overly promotional, and there are enough independent references with substantial content to meet WP:GNG. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 04:52, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the discussion at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2015 July 3#AVS Video Editor:

Extended content

Overturn the {{db-repost}} per RoySmith's analysis. I've reviewed the latest draft and do not believe that it CSD G11: "Pages that are exclusively promotional, and would need to be fundamentally rewritten to become encyclopedic." applies.
Here are some sources I found about the subject:
1. Winder, Davey (2007-10-10). "AVS Video Editor review". Alphr. Archived from the original on 2015-07-05. Retrieved 2015-07-05.
2. Mantilla, Daniel (2015-06-28). "AVS Video Editor 4.1". Software Informer. Informer Technologies. Archived from the original on 2015-07-05. Retrieved 2015-07-05.
3. Chadwick, Danny. "AVS Video Editor X6". Top Ten Reviews. Archived from the original on 2015-07-05. Retrieved 2015-07-05.
4. "AVS Video Editor". Softonic.com. 2015-04-14. Archived from the original on 2015-07-05. Retrieved 2015-07-05.
5. Bikin Keren Video Ponsel (in Indonesian). Yogyakarta: Galangpress Group. 2008. pp. 167–173. ISBN 9791828423. Retrieved 2015-07-05.
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow AVS Video Editor to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 20:26, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You didn't pay attention to the important qualifier: "independent" for sources. I don't think that sources which sell the tool are independent in wikipedia's understanding of the conflict of interest.Staszek Lem (talk) 20:52, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If those sources are disqualified, then the subject still would pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline. Here are some more sources:
1. Elosaily, Mohamed (2015-04-17). "برنامج AVS Video Editor لتعديل الفيديو واضافة التأثيرات". عاجل نيوز: الرئيسية (in Arabic). Archived from the original on 2015-07-09. Retrieved 2015-07-09.
2. Thứ bảy (2014-07-19). "AVS Video Editor 6.5: Quay và dựng phim chuyên nghiệp". Cherry Radio (in Vietnamese). Archived from the original on 2015-07-09. Retrieved 2015-07-09.
These two sources, added to http://www.khoahocphothong.com.vn/news/detail/12774/avs-video-editor-6-.2---bien-tap-video-chuyen-nghiep-danh-cho-nguoi-.-.-.-khong-chuyen.html, the review in the magazine PC Pro (now called Alphr), and the coverage in the book Bikin Keren Video Ponsel, clearly establish that the subject passes Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline. Cunard (talk) 06:21, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Cunard (talk) 01:09, 12 July 2015 (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.