Talk:Scala (company)/Archives/2012

Merge
I propose the merging of Infochannel and Scala Multimedia into this article. Both are products under the banner of Scala Broadcast Multimedia describing it as a company. Once merged this page could do with being renamed to the true company name Scala Inc.. The article Scala Multimedia discusses the history of the whole Scala concept in depth and even comments on Infochannel. Ultimately expanding any of these three articles would basically result in the same article duplicated three times. I believe one article would suffice to discuss the history of the company and its products. Peteb16 (talk) 13:49, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
 * ✅ -- lucasbfr  talk 11:55, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks! I'd forgotten all about this! Peteb16 (talk) 11:58, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Delete
This company resp. this software is not notable! It should be deleted, because it's only advertising sh*t!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.83.66.110 (talk) 10:25, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Many people, especially those who have worked in the media industry during the 1990s and more recently those who are in the business of providing multimedia signage to retailers, would very much disagree with your statement. Peteb16 (talk) 17:28, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Delete
This company is not notable! The article should be deleted, because it's only advertising sh*t!! Mediatemple 10:25, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
 * The company isn't notable in your own opinion. This does not qualify as good reasoning for Afd. Please stop adding Afd templates to the article without properly discussing it first. Peteb16 (talk) 14:33, 9 August 2008 (UTC)


 * It is listed for discussion now. Let's see, whether it's notable only in my opinion Mediatemple (talk) 09:55, 10 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Okay. So long as it is a discussion. So far, I'm the only one that's written more than one line about the subject. If you think it's an advert, say why. Make a coherant case citing examples. So far, I still don't understand your reasoning and why something that a lot of people can come into contact with many times a day (albeit passively) can be deemed not noteworthy. I definately don't see the connection with Vanispamcruftisement, which isn't even an official guideline anyway, so that particular user did not make a great case either. Although I will accept it needs more secondary references, it doesn't exactly 'lack' them, however.  Peteb16 (talk) 13:15, 10 August 2008 (UTC)