Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Portrait Professional
- 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. (non-admin closure) Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 04:35, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Portrait Professional (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)
tagged for notability for 5 years; I couldn't verify notability Boleyn (talk) 22:14, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Hmm, how hard did you look? A quick search yields lots of secondary sources for this software:
- These are all in depth secondary sources by independent organizations. The New York Times, PCWorld, and CNet organizations are well-known and reliable. The BBC reference in that article looks fine, too. Digital Photo News and Think Camera are more specialized, but seem reliable. Multiple reliable secondary in-depth independent sources lead to this topic being notable; the article should be kept. Mark viking (talk) 01:55, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 14:44, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 14:44, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Above, Duckispeanutbutter lists six sources, saying These are all in depth secondary sources by independent organizations. Oh really? The NYT article -- at least in the (seemingly complete) form in which I view it on my computer -- doesn't even mention this program. The page (79) in the Glamour Photography book (mildly NSFW, and IMHO tacky) is not "in depth" according to my understanding of depth. However, the other four sources seem good. -- Hoary (talk) 00:07, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Don't blame DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER--all those references were my doing :-) Thanks for critiquing my list of references. The NYT reference does in fact mention the product; look about halfway down the article for the paragraph starting "Some companies are trying to automate the process. Among them is Anthropics Technology, which makes a software program called PortraitProfessional..." There are four short paragraphs on the product and company, which seemed enough to classify as in-depth. I can see where you'd consider the GP ref not in-depth, it is mostly pictures. That the reference is tacky says something about the state of glamour photography these days. Thanks, Mark viking (talk) 00:43, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Oops! Sorry DPB, I blame Mark V instead. Except that I don't. Actually I blame caffeine deficiency. I glanced at the NYT article, which seemed to be about other software. Then I searched within it for Portrait space Professional and of course found nothing. Duh. -- Hoary (talk) 00:56, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Don't blame DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER--all those references were my doing :-) Thanks for critiquing my list of references. The NYT reference does in fact mention the product; look about halfway down the article for the paragraph starting "Some companies are trying to automate the process. Among them is Anthropics Technology, which makes a software program called PortraitProfessional..." There are four short paragraphs on the product and company, which seemed enough to classify as in-depth. I can see where you'd consider the GP ref not in-depth, it is mostly pictures. That the reference is tacky says something about the state of glamour photography these days. Thanks, Mark viking (talk) 00:43, 19 January 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.