Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Clesh

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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 keep still some concerns over notability based on the available sources, even after 15 days at AfD. Gnangarra 12:29, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Clesh

Clesh (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View log)

non-notable software; unreferenced/unsourced - CobaltBlueTony™ talk 19:23, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. --John Nagle (talk) 20:02, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Merge into FORscene or keep as stub Merge into FORscene Delete (mk has managed to find an impressive list of minor references to the software, including some that start to look as notable coverage[1]. The article has too little detail to be more than a stub) (it appears to be the comsumer version of FORscene, which is a notable product) No assertion of notability at all, fails both WP:WEB and WP:CORP. Also, fails WP:SELFPUB, since 3 out of 4 sources on the article are also press releases, and the article relies heavily on them, including the notability assertion on the first sentence. --Enric Naval (talk) 22:01, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
Note - Clesh is *already* merged with FORscene. This is a cause of confusion for the reader and article authors, having to manage two products following different development paths and serving different purposes in the one article. Same scenario as Adobe Premiere Pro / Elements articles - separate articles.mk (talk) 21:57, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment I've added another reference to the Clesh article that I hope will lend weight to the view this article should be retained. This brings the total to four now. The Royal Television Society recognised the technology on which this software is based as 'disruptive'. It is quite unique in its field and is undeserving of the 'not-notable' tag. It is the first - and currently I believe the only - example of a purely internet based frame accurate editing and publishing platform for the consumer. The organisation that produces it has a history within the video compression / editing industry of approaching 20 years I believe. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mark Kilby (talk • contribs) 23:47, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
The award mentioned was awarded for FORscene, which already has an article. --John Nagle (talk) 01:25, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
I would argue:
  • The RTS award does apply to Clesh
  • The two services FORscene / Clesh are different enough to warrant two articles
  • For consistency with other offerings which are accorded separate articles
The RTS award does apply to Clesh
At the time the RTS award was given there was only FORscene. This single platform has since diverged into two platforms; Clesh and FORscene. They are different but they share the same basic technology. The award was for the technology which is the same in both services therefore the award still applies equally to FORscene / Clesh.
The two services FORscene / Clesh are different enough to warrant two articles
Despite Clesh and FORScene both sharing the same basic technology they are different enough to each warrent their own article. Not only do they have different features they have different audiences. Clesh is aimed at consumers whereas FORscene is aimed at professionals.
As a consumer I wouldn't want to wade through reams of information that does not apply to the service/product I am interested in. It would border on being misleading. The aim of Clesh is ease of use / simplicity. Presenting a description of Clesh in the context of a professional service runs the risk of delivering an overly complex view of that service. I don't believe this would be right for the reader.
For consistency with other offerings which are accorded separate articles
The scenario of a common platform being tailored for different purposes / audiences is not unique to Clesh / FORscene and in other (virtually identical) contexts different articles exist in Wikipedia and work very well IMO. For example:
* Adobe Premiere Elements
* Adobe Premiere Pro
The above are both video editing offerings that share the same basic technology (just like Clesh and FORscene do). The Elements offering is for consumers (as is Clesh) and the Pro offering is for professionals (as is FORscene). As this text from the consumer version demonstrates...
It is a scaled-down version of the professional-level… It is the number one selling consumer video editing software
I.e. both share a common technology base but deliver different features to completely different sets of users.
Would it be right to have two different rules for the same scenario? How does the scenario of Adobe Premiere Pro / Elements differ from that of the FORscene / Clesh scenario? From where I'm standing Adobe is a much bigger company than the creator of FORscene / Clesh. Surely this is not the basis on which Wikipedia wants to discriminate?
mk (talk) 22:47, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep as per above I.e.
  • Software is notable and there is independent support for this
  • FORscene/Clesh share common technology but are diverged and serve entirely different user bases / have different feature sets
  • Authors of the software are notable and have a history working with video compression and editing stretching back nearly 20 years
  • Maintain consistency with other providers of software in the same space
E.g. Adobe Premiere has two articles (one for Elements and one for Pro). They share common technology but serve different audiences (consumer / professional) and have different articles to reflect this. The scenario of Clesh / FORscene is precisely the same.
mk (talk) 09:30, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
Note Signature "mk" and signature "Mark Kilby" are both Mark Kilby (talk · contribs). --John Nagle (talk) 15:50, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment Please notice that both Adobe products have more coverage by notable sources on the field than Clesh, which has still to show enough coverage any coverage at all. Notice that, in particular, Adobe Premiere Pro has massively more coverage that Clesh, making it a very unfortunate application of WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. It's also comparing apples with oranges (Adobe products are a shelf product, and Clesh is an online service). Also notice how the only claim of why it's notable is sourced on a press release from the company that created the product, that's not acceptable verifiability per WP:SELFPUB as the notability claim is based only on that source (I added this also to my !vote above). --Enric Naval (talk) 14:16, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
  • "Adobe Premiere Pro has massively more coverage that Clesh"
  • I’m not confident that the numbers game is a productive way forward. Precisely what level of coverage / usage would Clesh need to get its own article? Unless a number can be agreed upon how will we know when this line is crossed? Who would arbitrate the selection of such a number?
  • It seems a very odd way to go about spreading new knowledge to have as a pre-requisite the condition that the knowledge should already be widespread.
  • "It's also comparing apples with oranges"
  • It is not comparing Apples with oranges. Google_Docs competes with Microsoft_Office. The former adopts the same model as Clesh and the latter a Shelf Model, as you call it. Comparisons are constantly drawn between the two Google and Microsoft products; much of it speculation about which will prevail. Adobe and Clesh are both apples, they are different types of apple however.
  • The distinction you draw between Shelf / online software is rooted in the 20th century. Modern software has blurred the lines. If it isn’t used or delivered entirely online most all serious software has a facility to download updates online. After several updates you may even find you have downloaded most all the software online anyway.
  • What you refer to (Shelf vs online) IS a difference but that does not make the two different to the point they cannot be compared as alike. I used to edit video using Adobe Premiere but switched to Clesh and I do the same things as I always did. The delivery of the software to my door has changed - that is all - I’m still editing and publishing video. Online capability is a competitive advantage IMO – in favour of Clesh - but that is a different debate.
  • "Also notice how the only claim of why it's notable is sourced on a press release from the company that created the product"
  • This claim from yourself is not true so it should be retracted. The following quote is from an article authored by the major ISP Tiscali and not from the owners of Clesh: …Clesh is the first fully interactive consumer web-based editing package and offers an easy and convenient way to edit… (read in full here). Tiscali’s name is against this text not the owners of Clesh. Tiscali is independant in this regard.
  • Clesh is the very first professional grade video editing system available to consumers entirely online. Doing video editing online and doing it well is a non-trivial problem to solve. Clesh has solved it and solved it well. If it were the 10th such service to arrive on the market then I could understand some resistance but it is the pioneer. What is the point of an Encylopedia if it fails to accommodate advances such as this.
mk (talk) 22:51, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Well, doh, about Tiscali not being the creator, please notice that Tiscali parterned with the creators to launch the software, I can read "Tiscali UK has teamed up with Forbidden Technologies to launch Clesh (...) Available at launch only at www.tiscali.co.uk (...) To celebrate the launch of Clesh on the Tiscali portal, Tiscali is offering users the chance to win a dream weekend away (...)"[2]. Tiscali has an interest on making the software look good and he's one of the launchers, and this is a press release from a partner, not independient coverage, so my statement of WP:SELFPUB stands.
  • mk, the limits are clearly stablished at WP:WEB and WP:CORP, and, in order to assert notability, the number of indepedient coverages *is* important. Clesh is failing the notability guidelines at those two links, and Adobe Premiere Pro is clearly reaching them and then some more. Wikipedia is not "spreading knowledge", it's gathering it, and it has set some guidelines to decide what can have an article and what can't, Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. There is no "number game" here. The deletion decisions are based on Wikipedia:Deletion_guidelines_for_administrators.
    As far as I can see, people are counting notable articles here, which makes this facet of the debate a numbers game.
    I have not begun to seriously look for other articles. I will search for more in order to bolster those already provided. If anybody else has any to hand please list them within the references section of the main Clesh article.
    Wikipedia both spreads and gathers knowledge, I've learnt a good deal from it and so have others. The knowledge I've gained was spread to me from other people via Wikipedia. If spreading knowledge isn't part and parcel of its purpose then why is it sitting on a public network? If it didn't spread knowledge it would wilt and die.
mk (talk) 12:39, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
The primary purpose of wikipedia is making a high-quality encyclopedia. Please read Wikipedia:Simplified_ruleset and look at the 5 Pillars of wikipedia. Rules may change, but "spreading knowledge" is not one of the main purposes of wikipedia. It's sitting on a public network so anyone can read it and edit it in order to make a better encyclopedia. I'm sorry if this deceives you. --Enric Naval (talk) 18:31, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
Anyone thinking that wikipedia exists solely for the pleasure of a few thousand editors to tinker with an encyclopedia - is deceiving themselves. If that were its purpose then it would not need to provide the infrastructure to support the millions of people that access it. It depends to a degree on popular support and that is secured for in part by spreading knowledge to people that seek it (and end up donating money to support it). mk (talk) 09:25, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Adobe's product is different because no one would apply WP:WEB to it, but we can perfectly apply it to Clesh. So, for the purposes of this debate, I consider them as different as apples and oranges. --Enric Naval (talk) 00:02, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
    Most people would disagree with you IMO. People will look at Adobe Premiere because they are interested in video editing. They will not look at it as a great piece of software for putting on shelves. As such, they would also have an interest in Clesh - particularly so because it is a unique and noteworthy alternative at this time (as I have found).
    Wikipedia has a gap with respect to consumer video editing and publishing software - there are articles for off the shelf video editing products but none that use an online model. Adobe has articles for pro and consumer flavours, and this mis mirrored in FORscene (online pro service which has an article) and Clesh (the consumer equivalent which has no article.
mk (talk) 12:39, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
For the purpose of this debate at AfD in wikipedia Adobe Premiere has different notability requirements than Clesh and should not be treated the same way, and Adobe has tons more coverage than Clesh by wikipedia standards, ok? --Enric Naval (talk) 18:31, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Offer: Hi! A am involved in developing Clesh, so may be able to shed some light on this discussion. Would people welcome this, or prefer to continue without me? Stephen B Streater (talk) 17:34, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
Hello Stephen B Streater - I think a vote from yourself would be counter productive :-) Speaking for myself, any further references that independantly lend weight to the notability of Clesh would be very welcome —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mark Kilby (talk • contribs) 22:15, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Hum, this is not enough reason for creating an article.... You should address the notability problems by showing non-trivial coverage by secondary independent sources, since this appears to be the biggest problem with this article --Enric Naval (talk) 04:39, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
This article has been started by me, a new clesh user, who was overwelmed by this tool. He found it via Wikipedia in a list called List of video editing software. In this list the word "clesh" had a red font color, which means that Wikipedia asks to create an article on it, which the man did. --Alcid (talk) 15:13, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
No, that means that some editor listed several pieces of software and made links so anyone can decide to try and create the article. This does not mean that the article should forcefully exist. There is a list of requested articles at Wikipedia:Requested_articles but it doesn't mean that all those articles deserve an article of its own --Enric Naval (talk) 18:31, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment I left a note at Wikiproject Films here --Enric Naval (talk) 18:48, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment Notice that the company Forbidden Technologies does not have an article of its own, but it has a notable product called FORscene and has clear notability with very good coverage. --Enric Naval (talk) 18:59, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment There's a comprehensive comparison of video editing software here. Clesh and FORscene are included like for like alongside other well known brands such as Avid and Adobe. The Adobe Pro / Elements software (the professional / consumer versions of the Premiere product) both have thier own articles and is equivalent to the FORscene / Clesh scenario, yet only FORscene has an article currently. Since the FORscene article was added a consumer version of the FORscene (Clesh) has been created. From this arises the need for a specific Clesh article. mk (talk) 19:09, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
  • FORscene is mentioned in equal footing to Adobe products but Clesh is not. Clesh is only mentioned on a table at the end. I just noticed that this page is sourced from a wikipedia article called Comparison_of_video_editing_software, and wikipedia articles are not an acceptable source for things that are not about wikipedia itself. You will have to find better sources --Enric Naval (talk) 19:22, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment It appears that Clesh is the consumer version of FORscene, see [3]. This menans it could perfectly be added as a sub-section of FORscene article --Enric Naval (talk) 19:27, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
    That wasn't quite the perfect solution for Adobe Premiere Elements for the same reasons it is not perfect for Clesh. FORscene and Clesh are two distinct services. The only thing they have in common are the nuts and bolts - just like Premiere Pro / Elements. It is already getting complicated within the FORscene article, a point I raised on the FORscene article discussion board myself quite some time ago. It becomes *very* confusing both for authors of the FORscene article and *even more* so for readers. The two services are being taken down completely different paths by the company that created them. mk (talk) 19:46, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
    The problem here is Adobe_Premiere_Elements having enough coverage for an article of its own, and Clesh not having it. It's not confusing for the reader if it's well redacted --Enric Naval (talk) 20:07, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
    There are now seventeen independant references regarding Clesh. Note - this is more than the article FORscene has. mk (talk) 09:25, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Notable References Under advice from Enric Naval I've annotated the references so far collated for Clesh that I am able to do so (see main article). As of now there are 17 notable references. I have requested help with the three that are not in English. mk (talk) 21:18, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Comment. I wouldn't like to vote since I'm not familiar with the inclusion standards for software products, but there seem at first glance to be enough references for this to make it notable. However, I'm removing the two Polish references: one of them is not about Clesh at all, and the other just contains a very brief product review which is unlikely to add anything to the encyclopedia article.--Kotniski (talk) 12:44, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep as a stub (first choice) or merge into FORscene. There isn't a lot of independent coverage (I found this at an investor news site and a few other investor-related hits) but the product clearly exists as a separate offering from FORscene. I think it should be represented as a short stub article with links to FORscene and Tiscali. ATren (talk) 16:30, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Fabrictramp (talk) 00:25, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment by relisting admin: The references in the article have changed substantially since most of the !votes above, so I am relisting it to form consensus based on the article as it now stands.--Fabrictramp (talk) 00:25, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Weak keep Piece of crap though it is ("Clesh is notable because ..."), I think that among the amalgamation of equally crappy references, there are a few that assert a level of notability. A crawling, gangly notability, but notability nonetheless. Celarnor Talk to me 00:54, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment: don't merge with FORscene. Either keep or delete. 69.140.152.55 (talk) 07:11, 16 May 2008 (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.