Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/FLV Video Downloader


 * 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.   A rbitrarily 0   ( talk ) 01:40, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

FLV Video Downloader

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Contested prod. Non-notable software product; I could not find any significant independent coverage. Links given in the article are to trivial download pages. Haakon (talk) 11:46, 22 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep - First of all there is a reference to at least 1 independent review - . Secondly, it is published on numerous download websites, just as half of all software product articles. For instance, I could not find any independent reviews for any of these: VideoGet, Net Transport, ReGet, Orbit Downloader, NetAnts. In fact some of these articles' only refernces are to simple download pages. If that is any standard, then there could be easily tens of references to FLV Video Downloader. IF this article is to be deleted, then all others that are similar should be deleted as well - that's nearly half of all software stubs on Wikipedia, and I think it's just plain wrong.--George (talk) 12:52, 22 November 2009 (UTC) — George585 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * "At least 1" in this case means "exactly one", and the source is not significant. Also note that other stuff may exist. Haakon (talk) 12:57, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually, that one source will review anything for a fee, which fails the "independent" critera. Haakon (talk) 13:09, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Here's another independent review of this (1st version in this case): Review on Software Informer. Though I doubt that all reviews at FreeDwonloadsCenter are paid, as you imply.--George (talk) 13:19, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
 * This is just yet another download page with a small review attached by it. It's not significant coverage. As for FreeDownloadsCenter, we know that they give reviews for a fee, and while that may or may not have been done in this case, this makes them unreliable as a source. Haakon (talk) 13:31, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I could not find anything wrong with it as per notability guideline. Also, why does review need to be large as you imply? If the software does exactly one or two things and a review explains it, what else can it address? Dive into how the software is programmed? Also, these are general notability guideliness. Are the software notability guidelines? Also, what should be done then about the other articles I mentioned, provided this gets deleted? --George (talk) 20:52, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
 * It fails the general notability guidelines because there is no significant coverage by reliable independent sources. Reviews don't have to be long, but they have to come from a source that fulfulls the general notability guidelines. There are no guidelines specifically for software that I know of. I think somebody should nominate the articles you listed for deletion; I agree that those products are not notable. I don't have time to do all that myself, unfortunately. Again, other stuff exists. Haakon (talk) 21:04, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Don't worry about the other articles, they will be reviewed eventually. LoudHowie (talk) 15:39, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Haakon (talk) 13:33, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this software. Joe Chill (talk) 14:07, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete A download site is not independent. A site that whores itself out to do a review even less so. DarkAudit (talk) 16:08, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete freedownloadcenter.com is not an RS. Miami33139 (talk) 05:30, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete freedownloadcenter.com is not an RS. Miami33139 (talk) 05:30, 23 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete: Download websites are not a notable source. Can't find significant coverage. LoudHowie (talk) 15:38, 26 November 2009 (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.