Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/IFF (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 was   merge to Autodesk Media and Entertainment. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:21, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

IFF (software)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Wikipedia is not a change log. That's what this article is. Codename Lisa (talk) 07:36, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Weak keep I suspected this to be spam but have discovered that:
 * The software has been noted (and therefore may be notable).
 * Typically, this wasn't originally Autodesk software, but is reported to have been originally created by Discreet Logic, which may help in further searches for references.
 * -- Trevj (talk) 07:57, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
 * All true; all true. But even so, do you think we can salvage anything of this mess of an article? I believe not. IMHO, we are probably going to have to re-write the whole thing from the very first letter. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 08:20, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:09, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:09, 21 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Both good points. Clearly the table of prices and question marks with no citations is not appropriate, but the general history seems notable. Some coverage of this needs to be in Wikipedia, and just deleting with no trace seems a slight step backward. But fixing this mess would be time consuming. One idea would be to beef up the Autodesk Media and Entertainment section. (Although section headings need need work too, to be down-cased after the first word, sigh.) So how about to merge IFF (software), Autodesk Smoke, and Inferno (software) into that section. All three of those articles are badly sourced and not very wikified. Ideally the chronology would be presented in prose, in simple past tense (never using language like "now" or "currently") with citations. If that section gets too long, it could always be spun back out into one or more articles. The incoming links (such as Compositing Software need work too. W Nowicki (talk) 20:42, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Hi. I agree with the merge. I understand in AfD, it's always on the table and I have no prejudice against keeping what's worth keeping; indeed Wikipedia encourages documenting significant changes over time. And, you seem to have just found the suitable target too. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 06:35, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tito ☸ Dutta 16:47, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

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


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:00, 7 September 2013 (UTC)


 * merge to Autodesk - insufficient third party coverage of product for stand alone article. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  13:17, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Merge: I actually agree with W Nowick's idea. ViperSnake151   Talk  15:35, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I would still prefer to merge into Autodesk Media and Entertainment and keep that as a separate article. The company Discreet Logic has a rich history before it was acquired that needs to be told (it even went public, so should have sources in SEC documents etc.). The parent Autodesk should cover enough already, such as the AutoCAD era and focus on the California operations which are somewhat independent technically if not financially. Trying to keep an article up to date on exact releases or each product seems futile; one can always go to the company pages and get the latest.  I think that was the original motivation for this AfD: the litany of release details seems to obscure the forest for the trees, to twist a metaphor. I actually did one step to updating the AM&E article yesterday, but could use help if that is consensus, or have patience and I can find time in the next few days. Some of the info was inconsistent or out of date, and urls dead etc. W Nowicki (talk) 17:27, 8 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Merge per Nowicki. The Technical Oscar mentioned in the IFF article strongly implies notability for something, but the articles are currently in such bad shape that a merge would be an improvement. If the Autodesk article eventually becomes too long, subtopics can be split out into separate articles per Summary style, but we're not there yet and there needs to be a better organization for those subtopics than we now have. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:41, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Merge content to other article and decide then whether this content should be kept. Some is sourced - if it is important then more could be.  Blue Rasberry    (talk)   11:44, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete Article is unsourced except for two Autodesk announcements and one PRNewswire report of a press release by Autodesk. If it is unsourced, it isn't notable or verifiable. In that case, it doesn't belong anywhere&mdash;if it were merged into Autodesk Media and Entertainment, then it would be appropriate to remove it as unsourced. Autodesk Media and Entertainment is mostly sourced to company announcements anyway. - Pointillist (talk) 20:28, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
 * KeepI've been looking at the sources for science technology academy awards, but the online material does not go back this far for this particular one. Judging by their later material, there seem to be 5 or 6 awards each year. It seems reasonable to me that there might be that many notable products & developments, but I haven;t checked for articles on all of them. I think that it either proves notability as a major national award or goers a long way to showing it. However, the existing information in the article is inappropriate--we do include informations of the major versions of major products, but not to this degree of detail.  I'd keep it separate; there is enough information, but I'd summarize the data. (btw, this is a case where some indication of pricing is relevant to understanding the nature of the product.)  DGG ( talk ) 01:01, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't understand: surely if the award claim is unsourced, it shouldn't be considered except as a hint for WP:BEFORE. If we can't find a source, then we should ignore it, shouldn't we? - Pointillist (talk) 06:18, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Hello, DGG. I am very surprised. Your assessment is correct; but I can certainly not connect the dots from "existing information in the article is inappropriate" to "Keep". Indeed, what constitutes an article but its contents? And contents in this case are yet to claim the name of the "article" before getting down to "notable article"? Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 08:09, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
 * it means the existing information can be easily edited so it becomes appropriate, and therefore we can keep it and edit.  DGG ( talk ) 22:00, 10 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Conditional keep - I've now sourced the Academy Scientific and Technical Award. The award itself might not be a big deal: AMPAS handed out 13 others in 1998 but at least it provides an independent source to say that these products ever existed. So let's re-write and keep the article, merging in all the content from Inferno (software) (which can become a redirect) and Autodesk Media and Entertainment. The release list is 0% sourced and IMO should be terminated with extreme prejudice (per Wikipedia:NOTCHANGELOG)&mdash;the only excuse for such tables is the significant changes column and that's almost entirely empty in this case. If there's a source for the typical cost it can go into the body of the article. - Pointillist (talk) 10:43, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Merge to "Autodesk Media and Entertainment" seems to be appropriate in this case. Bcharles (talk) 11:59, 13 September 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.