Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/StoryBoard Quick

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) Mayalld (talk) 10:44, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

StoryBoard Quick

Blatant advertisement, regardless of notability. Fact that it was written by someone affiliated with the product makes that advertisement even more blatant. -- Gmatsuda (talk) 10:55, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:57, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per CSD G11. -- 128.97.245.99 (talk) 02:58, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The article seems unbias and clean. The program clearly is of note to the community it's a part of and the evolution of that community. —Andurrr (talk) —Preceding undated 05:22, 30 January 2009 (UTC).[reply]
Keep it. I don't see what the problem is. I use Wiki to look up info on software apps.--Halbiz1065 (talk) 07:53, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That's not a valid rationale for keeping the article. Please consider reading through WP:AFD for further details on how AfD comments are weighted; this is not a vote, and rationales which are based on personal opinion rather than policy are likely to be discounted. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 08:58, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Articles are not deleted "regardless of notability" just because of COI. They are rewritten to remove the bad bits. The article evidently has several reasonable sources (along with quite a few poor ones) which establish that this is a notable piece of software. If necessary, stubbing it and temporarily semiprotecting (to prevent editing by the ton of meatpuppets who have appeared on the article talk) is a potential solution to it being used for advertisement rather than description. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 08:58, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. After reading the article, I think it's a strong starting point. Could use notations, but like all articles, that will come in time.--WLasa (talk) 19:47, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep it. This software is notable because it was really the first software of its type. I used it back in 1995 when the only computer-based option was Photoshop. Every director I've worked with since has used this for storyboarding. I can understand having an issue wrt a conflict of interest, but it doesn't read like an advertisement to me. It is quite neutral and a good starting point. I think it should stay. Zenslug (talk) 20:19, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep it. I think that this article is valid: it was the pioneer of its field, and completely created the entire market for storyboarding software. I don't feel like I'm being sold on the software, it seems like it's just a factual list of what this software does, sans bias. It's a fair explanation and is noteworthy enough to warrant preservation on Wikipedia. PhilKin1244 (talk) 19:47, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep If you got rid of every article on Wikipedia that was originated or edited by someone with a close connection, you'd probably save a lot of server space. And remove a lot of valuable content as well. I see no sign of spam here. The product is described in a neutral way, and it seems quite notable too. Peridon (talk) 21:13, 2 February 2009 (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.