Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Youtube movie maker


 * 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. JohnCD (talk) 17:59, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Youtube movie maker

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Possibly too soon, in any way, there are no independent reliable sources yet, that give significant coverage. The article as it stands is a bit spammy, and from the primary sources supplied, I wouldn't really know how to fix that either. Without better sourcing, I can't see how we can in any way fix this. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 12:33, 6 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete yes, this is TOO SOON and essentially completely unsourced / unsourceable. Try again when it's been going long enough to gather favourable reviews. It also looks much like advertising. Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:50, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 23:18, 6 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete: it seems more of advertising then of "too soon". No indications of notability (neither WP:NSOFT, nor WP:N). &mdash; Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 23:49, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete: Non-notable. Appears to be spam. SL93 (talk) 00:19, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep: I search this program on google and yahoo, then have a try, I would like to say it's an valuable information, provides users with a free option, why not retain it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Davikolin (talk • contribs) 02:28, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
 * But IT'S USEFUL and I LIKE IT are not allowable arguments here at AfD. Chiswick Chap (talk) 02:57, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
 * maybe you are right, but I just want to say it's not a spam, we could keep it to get more knowledge about that, we need them to write something new and build encycolpedia for that, not just old, famous..... Davikolin (talk) 03:20, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but are you somehow connected with RealZeal Soft? &mdash; Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 23:15, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
 * ?i used their program before, what are you mean? Davikolin (talk) 00:20, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I mean that you have no edits to articles unrelated to RealZeal Soft. &mdash; Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 08:21, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
 * And Wikipedia is WP:NOTEVERYTHING either. Please see WP:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions. Thanks. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:04, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
 * thanks, useful info, I will read carefully. Davikolin (talk) 01:20, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
 * why delete? I read WP:Editing policy carefully, now this page is working in progress, but it isn't spam, not ad, not dictionary, not mirror, not blog, not manual, not news. Kobetyler (talk
 * The key reason is very simple: the article's subject is not "notable" (see WP:Notability). It's a core element of Wikipedia. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:54, 10 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Strong delete: Obvious advertisement that also fails WP:N. oyasumi (talk) 18:15, 12 February 2012 (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.