Talk:Framepool

Contested deletion
This article should not be speedily deleted for lack of asserted importance because... (can I have a short time or a move to userspace to check if I can add the points that show importance) --DaSch (talk) 10:25, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

The new incarnation
I can see you have worked hard on the article, and I am not about to nominate it for deletion precisely because of that. Nonetheless I have a challenge, one which may just be my own challenge. I don't understand how this organisation is actually notable. What I see is what it does, yes, but I can't see what is special about this organisation compared with another. I believe that this element needs to be addressed in order to seek to guarantee the article's safety from deletion. Fiddle  Faddle  10:44, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
 * The company is in it's field of rights-managed stock footage one of the few that offers full online licensing and payment, has a giant library of rights-managed stock footage. But it's hard to get sources for this, because nobody done research on this or published anything about this. --DaSch (talk) 11:01, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I understand the problem. You are saying that they are notable, but that you cannot easily verify it because they are specialist. What I suggest is that you look for all the WP:RS media coverage that you can find, even though this will be in specialist press. Remember that there is a distinction between the fact that their stock footage has been used (end credits etc) and a comment about their stock footage. You need to take care not to fall into the trap of making it look like PR cover. An idea might be to ask at the WP:GOCE for help? We don't have to do everything ourselves, after all!  Fiddle   Faddle  14:29, 14 October 2013 (UTC)