Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Comprimato


 * 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   delete. Secret account 01:44, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Comprimato

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Minor software library of dubious notability. The three given references are cited 5, 8 and 13 times according to GScholar. Q VVERTYVS (hm?) 09:22, 10 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep. In my personal opinion, the guidelines for notability have been met. Z10987 (talk) 12:05, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Which guidelines for notability? --&mdash;  Rhododendrites talk  |  15:12, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete - Three sources, all written by Comprimato's author. As WP:CORPDEPTH requires the sources to be independent of the subject, that means there are zero sources. In searching, I'm not finding much of anything beyond verifying that it exists. --&mdash;  Rhododendrites talk  |  15:11, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
 * You should be able to find INTOPIX is using Comprimato and NVIDIA is republishing their anouncements. In Academia world it is normal that researchers describe their own findings or work. Other way to confirm the existence is to ask for a demo - it would be great if someone else from the community should verify the existence and any independent view is helpfull. Regarding minority: other JPEG2000 libraries have their records at Wikipedia - check at JPEG 2000. Mkrsek  (hm?) 18:50, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Forgot the CESNET press release. Mkrsek  (hm?) 19:16, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
 * But republishing their announcements and the link to a press release are both just more primary sources. In the academic world it is indeed normal for researchers to describe their own work, but as an encyclopedia there have to be criteria for inclusion (otherwise every single researcher's project would have an article). The criteria is based on other people writing about the project. Wikipedia does not itself dictate what is important; it defers to what other people have considered to be important. --&mdash;  Rhododendrites talk  |  19:25, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, thats why I've included INTOPIX view. This is (by my understanding) independent source. I'm not sure if joint press release is primary source (as they need to convince others to issue joint information. Mkrsek (hm?) 20:35, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
 * INTOPIX is primary. Reliable secondary sources are third-party publications with editorial independence, not organizations that use other organizations' products. Those can be cited for their use of a product, but not to establish its notability. Q VVERTYVS (hm?) 21:23, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I dug up the number of citations for the cited papers exactly to establish these sources as primary; secondary sources need not be cited to prevent deletion, but a large number of citations at least establishes notability. Press released are also primary sources. Similar libraries having WP pages is an instance of WP:OTHER, which is to be avoided unless those other articles have been nominated for AfD as well so they can count as precedence. Q VVERTYVS (hm?) 19:51, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I got your point. Just following common sense. Expecting the Digital Encyclopedia has ambitions to fully describe specific topic. Mkrsek  (hm?) 20:50, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:24, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:24, 10 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica1000 08:17, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

 
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Mdann 52   talk to me!  08:00, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

 
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Davey 2010 •  (talk)  17:24, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

 delete&mdash;Small company in a niche market, so it's not surprising that third-party, independent sources are lacking. But absent that, we don't have the raw material for an article. Lesser Cartographies (talk) 06:25, 9 July 2014 (UTC)


 * 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.