Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/HyperCam


 * 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   keep. The policy WP:ORG dose not apply here and WP:GNG is met in an elementary WP:BEFORE search. While the delete comment was not able to find any sources, clicking on the news and books link in the find sources menu revealed numerous reliable sources. (non-admin closure) Mkdw talk 06:51, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

HyperCam

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

It's a close call, but the subject of the article is not notable. No reliable secondary sources are present in the article. My research finds that there are a few books that describe HyperCam in passing, but I don't think that's enough to make even a stub, or to meet WP:ORG. RJaguar3 &#124; u  &#124;  t  21:03, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep This video screen capture software has been on the market for over a decade. I found reviews in both PC Magazine and PC World, plus fairly detailed descriptions in at least ten books.  Cullen 328  Let's discuss it  21:17, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep per User:Cullen328. This is decently important piece of software. Bacchiad (talk)
 * Keep - Completely disagree with the article being not notable. Important piece of software, as said above.  Hair Talk 21:02, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:29, 29 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete - my gabber is flasted, from the comments above i thought this would be like microsoft office or something - I can't find any coverage that i feel would bring this within WP:GNG,WP:ORG nonsense  ferret  03:13, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment Some editors here seem to think that WP:ORG applies here. It doesn't. This is an article about a software package, not an article about a company. One editor here, jokingly I assume, seems to think that software must covered in a level of detail comparable to Microsoft Office in order to be notable for a Wikipedia article. With all due respect, that is incorrect. This is an encyclopedia which is not limited by shortages of either paper or ink. We can cover software packages that are not world-renowned and used every day by hundreds of millions. Yes, we can cover notable but admittedly minor software like . . . HyperCam.  Cullen 328  Let's discuss it  03:43, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep per Cullen. The number of book mentions alone would be enough. Mcewan (talk) 16:38, 31 January 2013 (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.