Talk:Clesh

This article must be listed in wikipedia as it was mentioned for months already in the article list of video editing software --Alcid (talk) 18:56, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
 * As with any article it's best to establish notability, preferably with an outside reference.Rob Banzai (talk) 19:15, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

notability
Added three notable references to keep this article --Alcid (talk) 19:56, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

this article should be kept
Clesh is notable as it was the first fully interactive consumer web-based editing package ever

--Alcid (talk) 12:57, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm mostly a wikipedia inclussionist, meaning I tend to lean to the side of keeping articles rather than deleting them, and most importantly not just deleting articles if they can be salvaged! I'm not saying that that is what's happening here, but it happens darn often, where this article may well be notable, there may be quite a few references out there, it may well meet the notability guidelines of its category (if applicable), or its unverified claims may have some sources out there -- but because nobody takes the time to fetch such information (especially deletionist admins who often have the tools, knowledge, ability and resources to find such information - but would far prefer to have less articles on Wikipedia). The bottom line is this: go out there, find the references. If it was on TV program or radio program - there's citation templates for those. Mentioned in a magazine or newspaper? There's templates. Published in a book? Template! And of course, published in the news somewhere on the net - find it! Take the time, or admit that the article simply doesn't meet notability yet. Rfwoolf (talk) 16:24, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks Rfwoolf - it's interesting what one can find when one starts looking. mk (talk) 21:07, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

improving this article
I've re-hashed the intro to reflect mobile / tablet usage but also to make it read less like an advert to address concerns raised. If anyone has any further input or ideas please discuss. Regards, mk (talk) 13:01, 16 November 2010 (UTC)


 * My view is the history page needs to be slimmed down, the platform is being updated all the time which is neither feasible to track within the article (it would render it unreadable) nor is this necessary (the authors of the platform maintain this same information on an external website where interested parties can be referred to) mk (talk) 13:04, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

I've updated the other sections now too (features / technology / user interface), and I will have a go at the history section soon. Any feedback welcome. I will set about removing some of the 'alerts' on the page header once I'm done as I believe my changes have addressed some of these issues. mk (talk) 10:50, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Have done a wholesale review of the article, cited references, removed unreliable links, removed any language that might be considered promotional. The software is the only frame accurate cloud based platform targeted at consumers - it is notable for this reason. Welcome further editors to review the changes made. mk (talk) 22:08, 19 November 2010 (UTC)