Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Diva (software)


 * 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 of the debate was DELETE. -Doc ask?  22:13, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Diva (software)
Non-notable software (first release less than a week ago). --W(t) 22:21, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nomination. &mdash;ERcheck @ 22:43, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. --Arnzy (Talk) 00:30, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep There's some misunderstanding here. The first release of this software was nearly a year ago. The first "1.0" release was less than a week ago. This is also one of the most highly anticipated new pieces of software for open source platforms this year. Those who are using Unix and Linux for video editing are anxiously following this project. Existing project, Kino already has a page, so I'm not sure on what basis we would remove this one. BTW: I have nothing to do with the project, nor the article. -Harmil 03:27, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
 * The first "release" in July 2005 was a "demo". The current release # is 0.0.1, which implies a "pre-release" &mdash; according to the Diva site, "The project is still in the early stages of development but we encourage you to try it out and get back to us with your comments."  This is not a production release.  Too early to have an article. &mdash;ERcheck @ 03:37, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Ok, I was wrong, sorry. Like I said, I'm not associated with the project. Yes, it's 0.0.1 and the Novell site I pointed to wasn't really helpful, as it was a non-functional flash-based demo. It's still a very important piece of software for Linux that many people have been anticipating. The digg article is highly ranked. It's also open source software. gaim had an article here long before it was 1.0. Linux would have, but that was pre-Wikipedia. Firefox  had an article a year and a half prior to 1.0. Open source software is often widely used prior to 1.0, where proprietary software almost never is. The real question is: how notable is this software. As someone who knows some indie film makers, I can tell you that the lack of decent video editing for Linux has been a serious problem, and that diva has been widely anticipated for just that reason. It's a niche market, but among that niche, this is a bomb-shell. -Harmil 12:05, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment: My company's software FORscene was thought non-notable in the AfD, even though it has been the subject of dozens of press articles and it has been used in the post-production of many broadcast programmes. And it won the Royal Television Society Award for best advance in post-production technology last December. So I'm looking for some consistency here. My personal view is that a lot of interesting software is deemed non-notable. The proposed new software guidelines may improve the situation. How does Diva fit with the current proposed guidelines: WP:SOFTWARE? Stephen B Streater 06:44, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Good point. Let's review the WP:SOFTWARE points:
 * Published works: yes on the second metric: many lesser publications:
 * innovative, significant: yes, see sources for 1
 * core products: hard to say, but I'll say no (see below)
 * major OS: yes and no. I'm sure that it's being provided by Novell as an updte to SuSE, but that's sort of a back-door yes.
 * trademark loss: no
 * award/honor/top 10: not as such, though as one of two applications in its class for Linux....
 * Hope this helps -Harmil 12:05, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Are the published works independent? Are they written by people involved in the project? If so, or if we can't tell, they don't count, as independence is the key for Wikipedia. If they are demonstrably independent, I'd go for notable.
 * We use Linux at work for our development and have played with Kino - I'll ask if anyone has tried this out. Stephen B Streater 14:30, 3 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete, seems not to be particularly notable. Stifle 23:28, 3 April 2006 (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.