Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/DVDVideoSoft

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. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 23:03, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

DVDVideoSoft

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

Non notable freeware product. Fails WP:GNG Codf1977 (talk) 15:47, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Over 10 references, first place in the CHIP.de Chart, 500.000 downloads a day, 134.000 subscribers and more than 30 posts on our software forum a day which is more than tech-pc or webuser.co.uk Noelle pozzi (talk) 07:10, 24 August 2010 (UTC)Noelle pozzi[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. —Cliff smith ^talk 16:31, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The article is about the company that makes the software, not about the software itself. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 02:36, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Malik, there are over 30 simple freeware tools. It is more convenient to bundle them all under the name of the website/company. Noelle pozzi (talk) 07:04, 24 August 2010 (UTC)Noelle pozzi[reply]

Delete in light of Malik's comments. I reverted my own speedy deletion because there seemed to be sufficient reliable sources to deem the software suite notable. But nothing in those references discusses the maker of the software, and in particular the whole History section is pure WP:OR with not a single reference to back it up. Kimchi.sg (talk) 06:44, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is my first article in Wikipedia. So i took AVS_Video_Converter page as an example page for this review. Obviously, the editors haven't been very strict to that page (judging by the links to their own website, promotional software databases and their self-made press-releases in the reference list). Upon your strict request the following data has been added to DVDVideoSoft page: 1) links about the history of DVDVideoSoft (#8); 2) more sources for your to consider them as reliable or not. Looking forward to receiving your comments on it. Thanks for your time. Noelle pozzi (talk) 07:00, 24 August 2010 (UTC)Noelle pozzi[reply]

Good. You've still a long, long way to go in learning to write an article. You can next read WP:RS which shows what not to put as "reference". I just removed two of the most unsatisfactory "references". By the way my "delete" stand remains unchanged. None of the new material addresses the central question: The notability of the software maker. Kimchi.sg (talk) 17:34, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

1. I've read WP:RS not once. Isn't it too subjective? I haven't found any LIST of reliable sources for software. Why do you consider pcmag, makeuseof, computerbild, chip, krone, famouwhy as "unsatisfactory" sources? What about Cuttermaran? AviSynth? Movavi? AnyDVD? Roxio and dozens of other software pages on Wiki who hardly have one reference? How many references should be there in one article? Please, explain. Thank you. 2. Your main questions refers to the notability of the software MAKER. But does it have notability for the software itself? Maybe i should change the name of the article to Free Studio? (that's the name of DVDVideoSoft's main product that bundles all their freeware) Noelle pozzi (talk) 18:08, 24 August 2010 (UTC)Noelle pozzi[reply]

(de-indent) Noelle, let's look at your objections to the guidelines of Wikipedia in detail.

"Isn't it too subjective?" - which part(s)?
"I haven't found any LIST of reliable sources for software." - because such a list would be outdated quickly. Instead, we have guiding principles for considering a site as reliable.
"pcmag, makeuseof, computerbild, chip, krone, famouwhy [are] "unsatisfactory" sources" - I didn't say that. The references you added were either unreliable (allow anyone to write content, etc), or they don't mention DVDVideoSoft in detail - for any topic to be notable, we require not only reliable sources but also significant coverage in these sources.
"What about [other articles]" - saying that is not addressing the concern here.
"How many references should be there in one article?" As much as needed to back up all statements made. Right now this article is in no danger of having too many references.
"But does it have notability for the software itself?" I'm not sure the software is notable either. Kimchi.sg (talk) 04:29, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

----> Kimchi.sg,

Reference #3 is an article from a reliable source because is written by an independent writer Dean Sherwin in an independent blog "Makeuseof" (website rating 1810), DVDVideoSoft is a part of an Internet-cathegory in Pcmag Web Magazine (ref.#2) which is for sure one of your reliable sourses. Please, explain to me why "his article is in no danger of having" enough references. Both sources don't allow anyone else to write content as well as #5 (interview) and #6 (it is written by Kerstin Viehl, Computerbild.de news editor) are worth relying as well. #8 is added for you not to claim it is unnoticeable.

2. Thanks for the WP:WAXlink. I got it! I'll stop giving links to other pages: they all've been marked for deletion after it:-)

Hope that i still have time to experiment with references for your approval. How much time do i have? Noelle pozzi (talk) 08:23, 25 August 2010 (UTC)Noelle pozzi[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.