Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/YTD 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. postdlf (talk) 19:43, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

YTD Video Downloader

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

This software has only a couple of third party sources, both of them indiscriminate download directories. I've searched, and I can't find anything but more download directories and warez blogs hosting cracked versions of the software. Since it lacks reliable, third party sources, this article does not satisfy either the general notability guideline or the WP:NSOFTWARE guideline on software and should be deleted. MrOllie (talk) 20:34, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:ADVERT in article form, and with YouTube founded in 2005, impossible to have a ten-year old YouTube downloader. Nate • (chatter) 01:55, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:40, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and Nate. Written like an advertisement. --kikichugirl ^inquire 03:18, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This seems like any other article about a freeware program. Example: Freemake Video Downloader is still up and doesn't offer any more valuable sources than this one does.--User:FlyersPh9 ^{02:12, 25 July 2013 (UTC)} — FlyersPh9 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Michaelzeng7 (talk) 18:36, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

comment - Per Wikipedia:Other stuff exists, the existence of similar or similarly-sourced articles is not considered sufficient justification for keeping an article at Articles for deletion.Dialectric (talk) 21:51, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I made some changes to the article to remove some direct quotes from the referenced articles in order to avoid considering the article an advertisement. Please let me know if there is any other piece of content you consider it should be edited. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Adrian309 (talk • contribs) 14:13, 30 July 2013 (UTC) — Adrian309 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:14, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:36, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is leaning towards "delete", considering the SPAs, but I would like to see if there's any comments following the 'improvements'. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:38, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – Reads just like an advertisement, before and after clean-up unfortunately. —MelbourneStar☆^talk 05:01, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. It's promotional. -- Y not? 17:12, 13 August 2013 (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.