Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/VideoPad

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 no consensus. This subject appears to be right on the borderline of notability. There doesn't seem to be any clear consensus one way or the other, therefore the article will be kept by default unless a future consensus forms. ‑Scottywong| chatter _ 22:09, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

VideoPad[edit]

VideoPad (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Hi. Subject of this article is not notable. In addition to the CNET and TopTenReviews sources mentioned in the article, I could find a Chip.de and a Softonic review as well, but none of these constitute the "significant coverage" required by WP:GNG. (See WP:WHYN for details.) I cannot find evidence to prove that this computer program has any impact. Codename Lisa (talk) 11:17, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:06, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:06, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This articleWebCite from Top Ten Reviews (which is owned by the American online publishing company Purch) provides 11 paragraphs of coverage about the subject.

    This articleWebCite from Datamonitor provides several paragraphs of coverage about the subject:

    NCH Software, a provider of audio, video, business and telephony or VoIP tools and utilities, has added a playback speed variation feature to its VideoPad video editing software.

    According to the company, the software's new capability comes just in time for summer, when outdoor activities, vacations, and get-togethers with family and friends mean taking lots of video. Users now have control over a video's action.

    VideoPad lets users capture video directly from a DV Camcorder, VHS player, or webcam, while video, image, or audio files can be imported directly. The application supports all common video file formats, including avi, wmv, 3gp, wmv and divx.

    The reviewWebCite from Softonic.com provides six paragraphs of coverage about VideoPad.

    This articleWebCite from Redding Record Searchlight provides two paragraphs of coverage about the subject:

    If you don't like the interface or find Windows Movie Maker too bulky or difficult, a great alternative option is VideoPad Video Editor Pro (www.nchsoft ware.com/videopad/index.html). VideoPad offers a 14-day free trial; if you like it, you may want to spend $30 to buy it.

    The easy-to-use VideoPad brings advanced features to the beginner. You can record your own voiceover narration or import recorded narrations, something Movie Maker lacks. Also, the full product lets you create Blu-ray DVDs, a feature that typically requires the purchase of additional software.

    This articleWebCite from The Sunday Times gives VideoPad a passing mention, so it doesn't contribute to notability. But the previous three sources do contribute to notability.

    VideoPad passes Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". Cunard (talk) 09:23, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Could simply be WP:TOOSOON for this one. Lacks the multiple reliable independent sources necessary to establish notability. The CNet "5-stars" is helpful but simply too weak as the only source. I also checked newspapers.com and highbeam.com (fabulous for AfDs -- if you don't have a free account yet, ask at WP:Newspapers.com and WP:HighBeam) and was surprised to find there is a likely notable Videopad (Boston Globe, Aug 1, 1993) but it's not this one. Msnicki (talk) 17:33, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Looks like advertising to me. The Banner talk 12:17, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete There's the SoftSonic review, which isn't a great source but ok. The Sunday Times passing mention, as a passing mention, doesn't contribute to GNG. The Record Searchlight piece is a little more than a passing mention but still just a couple lines of promotional copy. The Top Ten Reviews piece is discounted as unreliable (the "buy" link uses a referral code -- e.g. they get paid if you buy it based on their review). Datamonitor is again just a couple lines of PR copy. Might be too soon for this, but I'm certainly not seeing enough to pass GNG or any other notability criteria. --— Rhododendrites talk |  16:23, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • My second preference (after "keep") is to redirect to NCH Software (with the history preserved under the redirect). A redirect would be better than a red link because this is a plausible search term. Preserving the history under the redirect would be better than deleting the history. As I wrote at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2014 July 19#Westshore Town Centre:

    The only benefit of keeping the edit history deleted that I can see would be to prevent users from undoing the redirect and restoring the deleted content. But this is easily remedied by reverting the restoration and fully protecting the redirect.

    A benefit of restoring the article's history would be to allow non-admins to see what the encyclopedia once said about the subject.

    Using the deleted content for a merge is not the only benefit. Another example is that in the future if sources surface that demonstrate notability, the deleted content can be easily reviewed. Without needing to ask an admin, a non-admin could determine whether the deleted content could be used as the basis of a newly recreated article with the new sources. Deletion would hinder this.

    In sum, the benefits or restoring the deleted content outweigh the negligible negatives, so the article's history should be restored under the redirect.

    Cunard (talk) 11:28, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I voted "keep" and continue to believe that VideoPad Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline. I disagree with the statement that the Redding Record Searchlight is providing "just a couple lines of promotional copy". It is a reliable source, a newspaper that has an editorial staff. Scroll to the bottom of http://www.redding.com/contact. To say the content is "promotional copy" is impugning columnist Andrea Eldridge's integrity, a serious charge to make without evidence. I strongly doubt that Eldridge was paid to write that information. It is her own review of VideoPad for her newspaper's readers. The coverage there is significant enough to pass the "significant coverage" requirement of Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline.

    The Top Ten Reviews article says, "The Verdict: 6.15/10. VideoPad is great for beginners, but it doesn't offer as many tools as other products we reviewed." Although the page has a download link, the 6.15/10 rating indicates that the reviewer is not just trying to sell VideoPad. Furthermore, http://www.toptenreviews.com/methodology.html says:

    TopTenREVIEWS is not a pay-for-placement publication. Our editorial staff independently researches the review topic to determine which products are included. Once the reviews are published, our sales team pursues various means of developing revenue for each site. We maintain a strict separation between the editorial and sales teams to ensure that our readers find the information that they are looking for without concern about manipulation.

    I think it is a mistake to discount Top Ten Reviews as a reliable source.

    The articles from Softonic.com, Top Ten Reviews, and the Redding Record Searchlight are reliable sources that provide detailed coverage of the subject.

    Cunard (talk) 11:28, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, v/r - TP 21:15, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • This has been relisted after a DRV reached no consensus and the closing sysop and DRV nom agreed to a relist.--v/r - TP 21:17, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Per nom by Codename Lisa, Msnicki, TheBanner, Rhododendrites, and my previous close. The "keep" arguments are not convincing. --Randykitty (talk) 21:27, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question - I'm confused about the developments related to this AfD since its close. Could someone summarize? (TParis?) This looks like an open and shut AfD, with a single voice arguing inclusion and not even one reliable source supporting notability (see my previous comments). What I gleaned was that someone wanted the edit history reinstated and a complicated discussion took place concerning whether to do so and how to do so. Does that mean comments since its relisting should be geared in that direction? If consensus is again to delete, will it still be deleted? --— Rhododendrites talk \\ 21:32, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • User:Cunard would like you to consider the last minute question he raised pertaining to making this a redirect instead of a delete and redirect. AFD close will be considered alone normal consensus measuring techniques. Per Cunard, would you consider a redirect w/ history instead of a delete and redirect?--v/r - TP 21:34, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • (edit conflict)x2 If there are new sources I missed in DRV and elsewhere, I'm happy to look at them. Otherwise, I don't know why we would make an exception for this, which was not even -- to me anyway -- a borderline case. As general principle I don't have a problem with moving deleted articles, history intact, to the Drafts space if someone is confident the article can be improved, but the history should stay with the article in Drafts and the article, if it redirects, should be just that. --— Rhododendrites talk \\ 21:54, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I oppose retaining the history and the redirect. Delete means delete. We don't normally even bother with the redirect, much less keeping the history. What is special this time? If User:Cunard or others believe in the product and that sources are likely to be found, fine, the answer is to WP:USERFY it without objection so they can continue to work on it. It's entirely possible this is merely a case of WP:TOOSOON. But I've seen no reasons to keep a redirect and no reasons whatsoever to keep the history. "Deleting" the page but keeping the history isn't even deleting, it's just blanking. Everything is still there. That's just not what anyone means when they !vote delete at an AfD, to the point that I find it completely implausible that anyone could conclude that that's the "consensus" here. Msnicki (talk) 22:10, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
User:Cunard challenged the close, arguing that it was not an appropriate non-admin close at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2014 September 28#VideoPad. Without objection, the AfD has been reopened and relisted. Good call, btw. Msnicki (talk) 21:46, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The afd wasn't closed by a non-admin, or he wouldn't have been able to delete the history in the first place. The inappropriate non-admin close was of the DRV, and that was challenged at WP:AN#Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2014 September 28#VideoPad; TParis reverted and reclosed that discussion. —Cryptic 21:57, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Okay. I'll take your word for it. :) The debate was tedious enough the first time. I'm certainly not going back for another look. Msnicki (talk) 22:10, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't see anything mergeable past the first sentence, and if it's somehow kept outright, nothing currently in the Interface section has any place in a Wikipedia article. Eldridge's review may or may not be promotional copy, but this page certainly is, and there's no benefit to the encyclopedia to keeping this spam around, even hidden away in history. Should either be deleted, deleted and redirected, or deleted and rewritten from scratch; I have no strong opinion as to which. —Cryptic 21:52, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I would say that that's pretty significant. In addition to the sources already mentioned above, this topic has also received additional coverage by PC Magazine,PC World and Times of India. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 00:56, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • The Maximum PC source is the first good one I've seen, and Times of India is ok, but PC World and PC Magazine are just database entries rather than actual content. It's enough to merit the merge certainly, but hopefully we can find more if we're going to keep the article. --— Rhododendrites talk \\ 02:57, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • I can certainly understand why you'd say that the PC World source is a database entry, but I don't agree that the PC Magazine article is a database entry. It has a byline; it was written by Michael Muchmore, PC Magazine's Lead Software Analyst. It certainly appears as if he wrote it himself, and not some blind regurgitation of some press release. In any case, here's a different PC World article that's clearly not a database entry[2] and here's an older Maximum PC magazine article where it's named one of the best 65 free software of 2013.[3] A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 04:12, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect is the correct outcome, as Randykitty did after deleting, and was roughly endorsed during the deletion review. The article should be removed and the redirect should be restored. The history should be visible under the redirect, because there's no pressing reason to delete it and this is a wiki.—S Marshall T/C 08:13, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Mkativerata and Thincat have noted below that they want the history retained if the discussion is closed as "redirect" but they have no view on whether the subject is notable. What are your thoughts about the subject's notability after A Quest For Knowledge posted several new sources? Cunard (talk) 23:42, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hmm, I see what you mean. The PC Magazine entry says the product hasn't been reviewed by PC Magazine editors, which I think seriously inhibits its value as a contributor to notability. This PC World source does not seem to be a review. This Times of India source is rather better, and I think does contribute to notability. This PC World source also contributes to notability. It might be over the bar, actually. I've struck a substantial proportion of my recommendation above.—S Marshall T/C 00:21, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you for reviewing the sources. I also posted several sources before the relist. Some of those sources might in conjunction with A Quest For Knowledge's sources push this more comfortably over the bar. Cunard (talk) 00:35, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or redirect. I have no view on whether the article is notable; I'm just too unfamiliar with the subject matter. My contribution to this discussion is solely to say that there is no good reason to delete the article. If the subject is notable, it should of course be kept. If the subject is not notable, there is a perfectly good redirect target and no reason to delete the article's history in case, for instance, material can be merged into the target article. And, indeed, seeing as Cunard has already merged some content, deleting the history would now be improper. --Mkativerata (talk) 09:12, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I was invited here after my comment at DRV where I said that deletion on notability grounds should not necessitate history deletion if there is a redirect. If the redirect is made quite separately after the AFD, history restoration would also likely be a sensible request. I have no view on whether we should have an article on VideoPad. There is a suitable merge target and so keeping the history under any redirect seems best to me. However, moving to draft, userfying, merging or keeping would also be OK – too much to put in bold type. Thincat (talk) 09:58, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or redirect. Marginally notable software product. Borderline case; not clear if this should be deleted so defaulting to keep side. I hope this does not go to DRV again :( jni (delete)...just not interested 11:40, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Here is a half-page reference including a picture found using Google Books:
  1. Zpracování videa pro učitele (Video Processing for Teachers). Jirí Dostál, Palacky University. Faculty of Education. 2011. p. 21. ISBN 978-80-244-2785-0. Retrieved 2014-10-25. (Google translate Czech to English) VideoPad Video Editor is...a whole series of programs for creating movies and video clips. This editor supports formats avi, wmv, divx wmv, etc. As is the case with other quality programs for the common video processing, there is a range of effects, titles, captions and music ready to add to your production.  Unscintillating (talk) 00:41, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you for finding that Czech source, Unscintillating. Cunard (talk) 00:46, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've redone the Czech to English translation, using the 42-character Czech alphabet, and correcting what appears to me to be a typo in the original.  Here is the untranslated original, including replacing zpravování with zpracování: VideoPad Video Editor je...z celé řady programů pro tvorbu filmů a videoklipu. Tento editor podporuje formáty avi, wmv, divx wmv, aj. Tak jako je tomu i u jiných kvalitnějších programů pro zpracování videa the běžné, i zde je k dispozici řada efektů, titulků, popisků a hudby připravených pro přidání do vytvářeného filmu.  Unscintillating (talk) 20:49, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. A clickthrough of presented links indicates sufficient sources meeting WP:IRS have been found to warrant inclusion. It's close but passes, IMHO. BusterD (talk) 23:15, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Reads as marketing --Lfrankbalm (talk) 21:06, 27 October 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lfrankbalm (talk • contribs) [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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/VideoPad&oldid=1078425639"