Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Clipbucket

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. The consensus below is that the article subject does not have "notability" derived from coverage in reliable sources. Eluchil404 (talk) 07:53, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Clipbucket

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

No indication whatsoever that this product is notable. A prod was removed by someone with an apparent COI and without reason. Drmies (talk) 03:48, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: What is the issue here? "Software with no notability" means what? ClipBucket is "notable" because it is the only open source (OSI-approved) video sharing script. Google search: "Powered by ClipBucket" generates over 700k hits. Looks "notable" from here. Fw.clipbucket (talk) 03:54, 22 March 2010 (UTC)— Fw.clipbucket (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- Well, "software with no notability" means that this piece of software does not appear to be notable! Wikipedia's guideline for notability is found in WP:N. Now, you may say it is notable, but you need reliable sources that say so. The article has none, and a simple Google search means nothing. Look for it in Google News or Google Books: what you find there may help establish notability. Drmies (talk) 04:05, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- There are no reliable sources in these results. Drmies (talk) 04:06, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - LOL... News for what? Books for what?
    Any software with 700k users is "notable" with or without news or books.

Compare the entry to PHPmotion
You want to delete one, delete both, as well as the other video scripts on Wikipedia.

Fw.clipbucket (talk) 04:17, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK, you can't say I didn't try. Drmies (talk) 23:31, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. —LadyofShalott 04:12, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, spam, and fails notability. There's a passing mention here, but nothing but press releases and user-generated comments in news hits, and nothing but SEO in the first three pages of web hits. —Korath (Talk) 10:27, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Article about Non-notable subject, written like the back of the box would be if the subject wasn't open source. MMS2013 12:12, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Unreferenced article about SourceForge software, a content management system designed for video sharing. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:23, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The old article was written without any relevancy. but now i have attached all the relevant information with History and Background which includes lots of information if you want to know fully about clipbucket.116.71.190.218 (talk) 10:44, 25 March 2010 (UTC)Pirate — 116.71.190.218 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

~~Keep:~~ This script no doubt is Notable, it has been in the market from last 2 and half years, It has a very active community. just checked the Alexa and compete rankings which shows website is quite high traffic without any paid traffic it is quite notable. This site have huge amount of back links with "Powered by clipbucket" which makes it notable. and in last the Source forge shows the avg of around 800 downloads per week. which is quite notable as well.116.71.190.218 (talk) 10:44, 25 March 2010 (UTC)Pirate— 116.71.190.218 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Keep: - Nothing really wrong with the information provided. Proof of notability will be provided when found but the fact that the script is notable still remains with about 700 thousand google keyword search. Mini4me (talk) 00:09, 26 March 2010 (UTC) — Mini4me (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Delete - having looked in depth for independent coverage, all I got was passing mentions and user-submitted content. This means that very little of the article is independently verifiable, and this is made worse by the promotional nature of the article. – Toon 23:31, 28 March 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.