Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/FVD 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. Courcelles 00:31, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

FVD video downloader

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

It exists, but I couldn't prove WP:NOTABILITY Boleyn (talk) 06:54, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions.  czar   &middot;   &middot;  07:57, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions.  czar   &middot;   &middot;  07:57, 27 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar   &middot;   &middot;  07:26, 4 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete Another FLV downloader among many with no unique features.  Nate  • ( chatter ) 09:38, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete software article lacking references to establish notability. Dialectric (talk) 13:43, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Our discussion here is not related to the current contents of the article, or the lack thereof. Our discussion here is designed to determine if sufficient references could be found and added to the article (read: the subject's notability). If you go only based on the quality of the article, it dissuades inexperienced editors from creating new articles and gives an advantage to experienced or even professional Wikipedia editors (the latter do exist) who can craft an article to make the subject appear more notable than it/they actually is/are. Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:01, 6 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete No evidence of notability. AllyD (talk) 16:28, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete I just checked the Firefox extensions and it's not listed by that name there. Also, I have yet to find any sources to support WP:GNG: significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:57, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep This is a software program that is used by a reasonable number of people. Therefore I think it should be kept, as other projects like this such as Feather Linux have an article, so why not this? One Of Seven Billion (talk) 18:43, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS isn't relevant to the WP:NOTABILITY of this product. Boleyn (talk) 05:18, 11 May 2013 (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.