Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Need4 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 delete. Stifle (talk) 10:28, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Need4 Video Converter

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

This is a purely promotional article, created by a single-purpose account (see User contributions: MMetalSnake—apart from writing the Need4 Video Converter article, his/her only other contributions are promoting Need4 Video Converter in other articles). Its only purpose is advertising a non-notable product. It is not written in a neutral way ("one of the most complete converters") and does not suggest why the product is notable, because all three references are bogus:

The Tucows and Softpedia sources are not product reviews written by the Tucows and Softpedia staff. Because they both contain the same text (examples: "Convert video and unprotected DVDs using ready-made presets for any mobile device", "Enjoy the highest conversion speed on the market!"), possibly written by the software author, in a very promotional way. Therefore, the Tucows and Softpedia links do not count as reliable sources.
The Softpick link is totally useless, because Softpicks is an anonymous hoax website. They don't have any "About Us" section anywhere, they don't say who they are, the only way of contacting them is via the web form (a very common feature of hoax and spammers' websites), the Disclaimer, Terms of Use and other sections are "Under construction". This is not a new tactic in Wikipedia—spammers are constantly trying to put links to hoax websites like this in the hopes of fooling Wikipedians into thinking these references are somehow relevant. But the Softpick link clearly does not count as a reliable source for Wikipedia.—J. M. (talk) 19:10, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:37, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Has many Google references, quite popular on download archives [1][2]. The article has been re-written in a neutral way. Promoting links to the article has been deleted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.79.97.9 (talk) 08:06, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: 95.79.97.9 (talk • contribs) has made no other edits outside this topic (a single-purpose account, possibly a sock puppet or a proxy).
- Comment: The number of Google hits is irrelevant. Popularity in download archives in irrelevant, too (and Brothersoft cannot be taken seriously either). The only thing that makes a product notable is "significant coverage in reliable sources". Now, basically all Google results for "Need4 Video Converter" are trivial sources like download sites or crack/keygen downloads. This only proves that the product is available for download at various places. But it is not significant coverage in reliable sources and therefore fails to meet the notability guideline. If some download site reviews the product, it is in fact not a review at all, but just a verbatim copy of the marketing description that can be found elsewhere, too ("Enjoy the highest conversion speed on the market!"). The product is simply non-notable, and the article was created by a spammer.—J. M. (talk) 09:38, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I can find press releases and download sites, but what I cannot find is any coverage in WP:RSreliable sources to establish notability. -- Whpq (talk) 16:29, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Although the article is written in an acceptable manner, the main subject is not even near notability; there are tons of similar software in existence. This falls as promotional material. Rehman⁽⁺⁾ 01:35, 27 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.