Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/FORscene (2nd Nomination)

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 of the debate was keep. Sango123 15:34, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] FORscene

Page was previously deleted (at least twice) as advertising and recreated with some changes. It is still a non-notable software product, the article is advertising posted by the company's founder, and generally WP:VSCA-ish. Sleepyhead 12:04, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

(Please note: the above was moved from Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/FORscene

• Keep The article contains references to reliable sources which attest to the product's meeting the notability guidelines at WP:SOFTWARE. User:Stephen B Streater created a working copy in his user space, I moved it into main space because I think that this is now a good article which is stated in neutral terms and satisfactorily establishes the encyclopaedic notability of the product. You are invited to review Stephen's other contributions to understand the efforts he has made to understand and embrace Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Just zis Guy you know? 12:21, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Most of the references seems like press-releases to me. --Sleepyhead 12:33, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Some might be, granted, but some are not and there is (most importantly) good evidence that it is being used by several mainstream UK television production companies, including GMTV, as well as the Royal Television Society award. The Army Everest expedition link is also notable. I'd say it meets the guidelines. But that is just my opinion. Just zis Guy you know? 13:09, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

• Keep - has enough non-trivial mentions in the press to meet WP:SOFTWARE. Not great but far better than most of the software articles. Definately notable enough to keep - Peripitus (Talk) 12:57, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
• Weak keep or Merge and redirect to Stephen B. Streater. Artw 14:10, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - I don't see it as advertising, though perhaps it could be toned down a bit in places. Notable enough to keep. A Transportation Enthusiast 15:04, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - the software's notable, the article establishes that it is - and if the feeling is that it needs toning down, I'll put some work into doing that. --JennyRad 18:38, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep A little buffing and polishing wouldn't go amiss though. Dlyons493 Talk 19:24, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep and shorten - the made up word "concisify" comes to mind. The history needs to be less step by step and more general, and the references can leave out so many [numbers] and just list them at the bottom. The article has good information, but is a little lengthy for the topic. Fresheneesz 07:44, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - I could not fail to disagree more with the statement this is "...a non-notable software product". The design is rather like Concorde; it was the first of its kind and I don't believe anything since has equalled it, or even come close in terms of breadth nor depth. If somebody can point me to an equivalent then please do. Unless you have tried to 'do internet/mobile video' yourself you may not fully appreciate how ground breaking this software is. It was recently described as a classic example of a 'disruptive' technology. Don't object to changes in content / style - but the 'invention' is certainly notable and it should stay. mk 00:30, 14 June 2006 (UTC).

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.