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. Missvain (talk) 05:38, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

AVS Video Editor (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

Four years since the four nomination, the article has not improved. Which wouldn't be a problem if for the fact that it clearly fails Wikipedia:Notability (software). Two refs to its own website, one to a download farm, unreferenced criticism section... we are not Softpedia. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 20:29, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:41, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:41, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - software article of unclear notability, lacking independent references. software.informer and Cnet are download sites providing a download link for this software and thus not independent coverage. A search shows other download sites with brief reviews, did not turn up any significant, independent RS coverage of this software.Dialectric (talk) 19:30, 15 February 2015 (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.