Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/YouTube CD Creator

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 delete. czar 09:15, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

YouTube CD Creator

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

Completely non-notable software, a spammer's article J. M. (talk) 22:01, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This is an informative description of a popular download manager, their are many others in wikipedia that follow the same format, they are active and have a large amount of edits - meaning they haven't slipped through the net so to speak, and have been deemed worthy. This is no exception. Article should remain. Michaelbarry147 (talk) 22:25, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

— Note to closing admin: Michaelbarry147 (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this XfD. —

You are unable to prove the software is popular, as there are basically no sources about it at all. Besides, notability does not rely on popularity. The "Other stuff exists" argument is invalid in deletion discussions.—J. M. (talk) 22:40, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.instructables.com/id/How-to-Create-a-CD/ a site which i have no control over, shows that almost 5,000 people have viewed the tutorial there. That is proof that it is popular. Michaelbarry147 (talk) 04:57, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but that is irrelevant (and ridiculous). Besides, this is one of the most common tricks spammers use: post a "howto" tutorial on some blog, wiki or a similar website with a generic title that suggests the article deals with a general topic, to attract visitors (in this instance, "How To Burn A CD"), and then advertise their product in the article (and spam with the fake "tutorial" on Wikipedia).—J. M. (talk) 17:53, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No evidence of notability. 2601:188:1:AEA0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 23:12, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:16, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 ^talk 17:16, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:02, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete We don't promote ways to round a website's TOS, and this is definitely one way to do it, along with promoting music piracy. Not only non-notable, but a good candidate to get DMCA'ed if we somehow kept this (not even considering the eHow-ish links mentioned above designed to scream WP:ITSNOTABLE). Nate • (chatter) 05:11, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Software article of unclear notability, lacking independent RS references. Softpedia articles with their large 'download now' buttons for the reviewed software are not independent, and howto articles are not typically seen as contributing to notability. A search turned up no significant WP:RS coverage. Dialectric (talk) 06:51, 25 July 2016 (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.