Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Any Video Converter

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. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 19:01, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Any Video Converter (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

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

Serves primarily as an advertisement vehicle, and the software doesn't appear to be represented in reliable sources beyond passing references. Yutsi ^Talk/ Contributions 18:39, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Self-promotion and advertising. Doesn't meet Notability. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 19:02, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Reads like advertising; sourcing is sparse. Nwlaw63 (talk) 21:14, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: I started the article and it was hijacked! The earlier version has three reliable sources with significant coverage. SL93 (talk) 01:14, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is also this long review. SL93 (talk) 01:16, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Here is a short review. SL93 (talk) 01:37, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • It still doesn't meet notability required for Wikipedia even without the advertising. Even though it was 'hijacked'. If it was a matter of just advertising it could be removed; but sourcing for WP:Note still stands. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 01:41, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • How does 2 reviews and 3 references in the article not show notability? SL93 (talk) 01:44, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • In the article - a review, 3 pages, and 1 page. These are not trivial mentions. SL93 (talk) 01:49, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Per SL93's sources. I have also (hopefully) fixed up the article. Blatant promotion removed, claims now sourced. A412 (Talk • C) 04:04, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. The existing reliable, secondary sources provide enough coverage to pass WP:GNG. The poor state of article due to promotional edits does not reflect on notability. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 09:47, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Some of the promotional language seems to have been my fault. I didn't notice that I was doing it, but I do use the software. SL93 (talk) 14:41, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • I meant before, when it had feature list and such, it's fine(ish) now. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 15:21, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:50, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep as per SL93. Deletion would be an option if there was no history to fall back to - in this case, we can restore a version prior to the promotional edits. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 16:14, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: the established practice is to consider the topic notable if there are at least two sources with indication of editorial oversight. Here we have more then two. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 16:30, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment A few reviews does not in my mind establish long term notability. Just because there are a few sources doesn't mean you have established significant converage required for real notability. This idea that two sources establishing notability is NOT standard practice, and shouldn't be. Nwlaw63 (talk) 20:50, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • All that WP:N says on the matter is significant coverage in multiple reliable sources. SL93 (talk) 21:31, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Isn't "long term notability" subjective to each person? That is why notability guidelines exist. SL93 (talk) 21:37, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I count no less than five independent reviews here. A412 (Talk • C) 23:59, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep WP:N for this topic has been met as an addressable issue. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 09:47, 2 March 2012 (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.