Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Download youtube videos

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 SNOW delete. JamesBWatson (talk)

Download youtube videos

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

Notability/advertising. Seems like a run-of-the-mill video downloader. One review by "CNET staff" and a review from PCWorld. Apparently the creator LindaBanh keeps creating similar articles... Brainy J ~✿~ (talk) 16:27, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It doesn't suggest why this particular downloader is notable ~~not~~nor if the company producing it is notable.-- 🍺 Antiqueight ^confer 16:52, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

'nor', maybe, not 'not'? Peridon (talk) 17:46, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

oops- yes.. should read "nor if the company..."-- 🍺 Antiqueight ^confer 20:32, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete They've got rid of the copyvio and spam present at /Download Youtube Videos, but there's no indication of notability for me. Peridon (talk) 17:46, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not pass WP:GNG. --Nlfestival (talk) 19:00, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Brainy J ~✿~ (talk) 19:46, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete doesn't meet notability requirements.LM2000 (talk) 13:12, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable software. Editor appears to be here just to push their software. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 04:37, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: The article author just created a similar article at Download Youtube Video Using 3 Different Methods which I have just nominated for deletion. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 04:38, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Your average poorly-written WP:ADVERT, along with a link to a website selling the product which makes me afraid to click anything in that window. Nate • (chatter) 06:16, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete - per other deleted contributions from the article's creator, their single purpose which has been shown as disruptive linkspam, earning a block of editing privileges for the editor.—John Cline (talk) 10:27, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - non-notable software, fails WP:GNG and WP:CORPDEPTH. (Note: I deleted an associated article and blocked the user that started the article. That an article is written like an advert is still not a reason to delete it. Nothing salvageable here, tho.) --Shirt58 (talk) 10:48, 29 October 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.