Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/DivXLand Media Subtitler


 * 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. —Tom Morris (talk) 08:19, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

DivXLand Media Subtitler

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Searching, I find no sources that demonstrate notability or pass WP:RS, just blogs and the like. Dennis Brown &#124; 2¢ &#124; WER  18:49, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:54, 25 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete: no significant coverage in independent secondary reliable sources. All I found were these two sources, which don't discuss the software in more or less significant depth, and both have problems of their own: Softpedia is not independent (hosts indiscriminate collection of download and describe it randomly; no assertion of notability to reuse per WP:GNG) and LifeHacker is a collective blog, albeit with some editorial control. Anyway, even if sources were 100% reliable and independent, the "significant coverage" criterion of WP:GNG is not addressed. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 15:16, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Davey 2010 •  (talk)  01:59, 1 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Weak delete - The article reads like an advertisement. As is, it seems to provide no value to a Wikipedia user.  The software has some coverage, but questionable whether it is sufficient to confer notability.  Substantial coverage would likely include critical analysis rather than fluffy marketing.--Rpclod (talk) 18:41, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete. Does not show significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject. The article has received two "reviews" but they don't qualify as significant. Fleet Command (talk) 07:41, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
 * 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.