Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/AVS Video Editor (3rd nomination)


 * 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.  Sandstein  07:21, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

AVS Video Editor
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

As a result of Deletion review/Log/2015 July 3, this recreation of a previously deleted article is made subject to a deletion discussion. Please refer to that discussion for reasons why it should be deleted or retained. This is a procedural nomination, I am neutral.  Sandstein  07:33, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:47, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:47, 10 July 2015 (UTC)


 * keep article is not overly promotional, and there are enough independent references with substantial content to meet WP:GNG. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 04:52, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

Keep per the discussion at Deletion review/Log/2015 July 3:

Overturn the db-repost per RoySmith's analysis. I've reviewed the latest draft and do not believe that it CSD G11: "Pages that are exclusively promotional, and would need to be fundamentally rewritten to become encyclopedic." applies. Here are some sources I found about the subject:    </li>User:Elee <li></li> </ol>There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow AVS Video Editor to pass Notability, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". Cunard (talk) 20:26, 5 July 2015 (UTC)</li></ul>
 * You didn't pay attention to the important qualifier: "independent" for sources. I don't think that sources which sell the tool are independent in wikipedia's understanding of the conflict of interest.Staszek Lem (talk) 20:52, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
 * If those sources are disqualified, then the subject still would pass Notability. Here are some more sources:<ol><li></li><li></li></ol> These two sources, added to http://www.khoahocphothong.com.vn/news/detail/12774/avs-video-editor-6-.2---bien-tap-video-chuyen-nghiep-danh-cho-nguoi-.-.-.-khong-chuyen.html, the review in the magazine PC Pro (now called Alphr), and the coverage in the book Bikin Keren Video Ponsel, clearly establish that the subject passes Notability. Cunard (talk) 06:21, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

Cunard (talk) 01:09, 12 July 2015 (UTC)</li></ul>


 * 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.