The result was delete. Jayjg (talk) 01:23, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Fails to comply with Wikipedia notability guideline as it has failed to provide significant coverage from reliable secondary sources. Cursory web search yielded the following results:
I advise the article to be deleted. Fleet Command (talk) 15:27, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Addendum: Oh, I forgot to mention: The article is also written like an advertisement as it is mainly a list of features and system requirements. Fleet Command (talk) 15:32, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Addendum: I just noticed that the creator of this article, Imtoostudio (talk · contribs), is banned from Wikipedia for publishing promotional contents. Contribution log shows that his major contributions before getting banned was made to this article. Fleet Command (talk) 15:50, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, on the contrary, I think I hit the spot. Software pirates are immoral and untrustworthy and are not remotely reliable. Shame on you for ever trying to quote a software pirate and putting their word on the same rank as a reliable source, for whatever reason.
And in case you don't know, blogs and forums posts are not considered reliable sources. Sources #2, 3, 4, 5 and 6 are thus void.
Fleet Command (talk) 20:12, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]Alright, dear Pcap. I think the tension between you and me is now lightened, so both of us are now ready to talk logically and per Wikipedia guidelines, with the goal of improving Wikipedia in mind.
So, allow me to start: The following is an assessment of the sources which you have provided above. Please state whatever objection you have in regard to my assessments, preferable in a granular manner.
Source | Problem |
---|---|
Hardware Analysis forum | WP:RS and (potentially) WP:POV → The source is a public forum. Everyone can become a member of it and can say anything. There is no reason to think that it can be trusted or whether it is NPOV. |
CDR-infO Forum (Posted twice as #4 and #6) | WP:Verifiability → It is a forum post in which its moderator reprimands a user for writing about one or more pieces of horrible software and advertising another. The only mention of ImTOO and Xilisoft is in its topic name but there is no telling whether the horrible software was a Xilisoft or ImTOO product, or the product being advertised was a Xilisoft or ImTOO product. Therefore, it cannot be used as an evidence for the subject of AfD. |
A software piracy website | WP:RS → The source is a software piracy web site. Pirates are considered highly unreliable.WP:OR → The site asserts to be offering tools that assist in unauthorized use of ImTOO and Xilisoft products but does not assert that they are actually both one thing. To find out, one must download the illegal contents and investigate—Oh, wait! Apart from the risk of downloading a malware, doing this is original research, which is not allowed in Wikipedia. |
I, Myself — I think you are telling the truth. I think Xilisoft and ImTOO are actually one company. | WP:Verifiability → “The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—that is, whether readers are able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether we think it is true.” |
|
They look good. However, I did not analyze these articles yet because they seem to be on Xilisoft Video Converter not ImTOO Video Converter. First, you must establish that these two products are the same. Other than that, they look good. Note that I reserve myself the right to analyze them for notability, if the two products are proven to be one. Fleet Command (talk) 15:49, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply] |
WP:Verifiability → They neither mention ImTOO Video Converter nor Xilisoft Video Converter. They only mentions “Xilisoft iPod Video Converter” which is a different product. | |
iDENS.cz | WP:Verifiability → It neither mention ImTOO Video Converter nor Xilisoft Video Converter. It only reviews “Xilisoft 3GP Video Converter” which is a different product. |