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. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:23, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Video Converter Ultimate

[edit]

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

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:

CNET Download.com and Softonic didn't feature this product at.
Softpedia features both Windows version and Mac version of the product but Windows version is reviewed by no one and Mac version is reviewed by no more than 45 people.
Betanews Fileforum does not feature the Windows version but the Mac version is very unpopular. The standard version of the product for Windows is also downloaded no more than 43 times since 8 December 2008.
A cursory search in Google Books came empty.

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]

Delete – This particular Brand is not notable as of today. However Xilisoft Video Converter Ultimate shows well over 50 articles, primarily PCWorld, but several other reviews from the likes of the news againcies such as the Washington Post [1]. Maybe article should be written about them? JAAG^Talk 20:12, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: notability not established with third-party reliable sources. -- 李博杰 | —Talk contribs email 00:52, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with JAAG. This article should be changed to Xilisoft Video Converter Ultimate. ImTOO is actually a subdivision of Xilisoft, when you look at their products, they all say made by Xilisoft Corporation. In fact, ImTOO Video Converter is exactly the same as Xilisoft Video converter except with a slightly different interface.(Celicaman (talk) 02:05, 4 January 2010 (UTC))[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- Pcap ping 10:14, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep but rename to Xilisoft Video Converter. This is a rebranded version of that line of products with a different skin ("Ultimate" is just one edition, they also have Standard, Premium, etc.); see [2] [3] [4] [5]. Although these guys are well-known spammers on other sites as well [6], their stuff appears to be the subject of some independent commentary under the Xilisoft brand. PC World review, reproduced by Washington Post [7], more reviews: [8], [9], [10], [11], [12] (last one is from Mladá fronta DNES). Other mainstream media mentions: [13] [14]. Don't forget to add ffmpeg hall of shame for WP:NPOV. Pcap ping 11:59, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Hey! What is this? You use warez website as a reputable source? I did not think your standard of quality is so low! And you take some guy posting in a forum as source? There is no way anyone would accept sources number 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6 as remotely reliable! And please do not try to make the list of your sources big by inserting duplicate links. It is dishonest! Fleet Command (talk) 12:58, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Your comments are dishonest or clueless. I used the crack only link as additional evidence that products are identical, not to claim any notability based on that. And I've only duplicated one link for different purposes: (1) part of the discussion that these are identical products, and (2) part of the discussion that these guys are known spammers. The links supporting notability of the Xilisoft Video Converter Ultimate are all from reliable sources. And the first link supporting the fact these products are nearly identical is from a round-up review. Conveniently, you decided to badger me with the last link there, ignoring all other. Please find someone else to harass. Pcap ping 13:12, 4 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]
      - I replied on on my talk regarding your repeated accusations and incivility directed against me. This isn't the kind of discussion the closing admin needs to wade through. Pcap ping 22:35, 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.”
PCWorld Review and Washington Post Review (A duplicate of PCWorld Review) PC.WELT Review ITReviews TopTenReviews (Posted twice as #2 and #11) USA Today article about watching TV on PC	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]
Linux Insider InformationWeek	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.

- And by the way, people, how do you know ImTOO is same as Xilisoft? Maybe they are two software with the same name under two different brands? Any evidence? Fleet Command (talk) 12:58, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - "how do you know ImTOO is same as Xilisoft?" They are the same company with the same products just different skins. If you email xilisoft, they will admit to it. someone ask about it on their official facebook and they said imtoo is just a subdivision of xilisoft. I'm no wiki guru, but pcword, washington post, and usatoday seems like reputable sources to me. U can also look at their alexa rating, xilisoft is up there. so replacing imtoo with xilisoft makes sense to me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.207.177.237 (talk) 06:16, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - “I emailed and they denied. Xilisoft accused ImTOO of copyright violation. I even have the email. I send you a copy if you want.” But how can you believe me? Maybe I have faked an email! That's why we have WP:OR: Original research is not allowed in Wikipedia! Fleet Command (talk) 15:49, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Promotional article written by the creator of the product.—J. M. (talk) 19:14, 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.