Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/FormatFactory

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. sufficient consensus for a keep here JForget 02:37, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

FormatFactory

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Reason One: Fails to comply with Wikipedia Notability guideline as it neither asserts notability nor shows any evidence of significant coverage from reliable secondary sources.

Cursory web search came up with the following results:

Google Books search came up with no vaild results: Top ten results contain irrelevant thing which were accidentally called "format factory".
CNET Download and Betanews Fileforum didn't feature this product.
Softpedia does feature this product but it seems obscure.
Softonic also does feature this product and in fact has given it a rating of "Excellent". Still, no more than 12 users have written a review for it over a year and a half. Nonetheless, if we accept it as a single reliable coverage, this article's subject is still far from significant coverage.

Reason Two: This article is written like an advertisement.

Deletion is advised. Fleet Command (talk) 16:03, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- Pcap ping 17:54, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. There's no Softpedia editorial review of this product. Those linked are user reviews. Pcap ping 17:58, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Exactly. That's what I meant. Fleet Command (talk) 06:10, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like a keep though. A sort of review and a tutorial on CNet. Also a review on Stern's website. Included in round-ups netzwelt, and Computerra [1]. ZDnet take in Dutch, and (laugh) tutorial in vi:Dân Trí (top 10 Vietnamese newspaper site--a sort of The Sun). Pcap ping 19:08, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The CNET blog post is not acceptable per WP:NTEMP: CNET is no longer hosting the download, therefore the review is just a "burst in the news".
  As for the rest, they are blog posts. Personally, I don't accept them as notable. Let's see what administrators think about them.
  Then we get to the second concern: Even a well-sourced article should not be an advertisement; It must be encyclopedic. An article which is well-cited and well-sourced but has no contents other than that of its product website plus some testimonials is not acceptable in Wikipedia per WP:PROMOTION.
  Fleet Command (talk)
  - Seth Rosenblatt is a CNET editor. His blog is not self-published, just like the blogs of journalists at other mainstream media outlets. And he's just one source. You're making up all sorts of rules that simply don't follow our guidelines. Pcap ping 07:46, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Cnet is legitimate coverage. That was a legitimate review by an editor of CNET, which counts as a reliable source. WP:NTEMP says if it was notable once, it remains notable forever. A lot of famous people are totally unknown by anyone these days, nothing ever written about them, but if they got plenty of coverage in eighty year old newspapers around the world, then they still count as notable. There are many reasons CNET may not host the download anymore, the most likely one being that the author wants people to go to his site, so they can see the donation request. Dream Focus 23:14, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: there are billions of multimedia converter software - why include this one out of all others? what makes this one so special that we don't include articles of all 1,999,999,999 other similarly-featured software? -- 李博杰 | —Talk contribs email 00:48, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Because multiple sources that pass as reliable for computing stuff wrote at some length about it (and a few other similar software, but not about the majority of the 1,999,999,999 converters you claim to exist)? Pcap ping 07:46, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:WAX --Cybercobra (talk) 00:47, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - WP:BIG and WP:LOTSOFSOURCES Fleet Command (talk) 09:02, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Based on the coverage it gets from CNET and elsewhere. Dream Focus 23:17, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Yes, I agree that the article's notability can now be established. We can now wait for nomination period to expire and the article to be rescued.
  However, I still believe that CNET's review is not eligible as notable because FormatFactory is withdrawn from CNET. This withdrawal should also be taken into account. Notability does not need ongoing coverage, yes I know, but withdrawal is different from lack of ongoing coverage.
  Fleet Command (talk) 03:36, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per sources listed. I have toyed with an essay about the stages of deletion that nominators go through. The AFD MediaCoder would be the case study.
No sources >> Okay, yes, there are sources, but, those sources are passing mentions in reliable sources >> (I forgot the next steps).
The deletion reason changes, but the deletion stands. withdraw comment, nominator has a very rare and admirable ability to change his stance based on new information. My sincerest apologies Fleetcommand, thank you for the pleasant suprise, the barnstar I gave you for your changed view regarding MediaCoder is very well deserved. mea maxima culpa. Ikip 02:17, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry but I don't exactly understand your meaning, Ikip. Would you please clarify a bit? Thanks! Fleet Command (talk) 03:18, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and improve. LotLE×talk 22:08, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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.