Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Luxology


 * 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. henrik • talk  00:49, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Luxology

 * – ( View AfD View log )

The subject of the article lacks significant coverage in reliable third party sources and fails the notability guidelines for organizations. Alpha_Quadrant   (talk)  20:27, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Well, yeah, it seems there's not a lot of interest in this page. I created the stub almost four years ago (because several computer graphics articles had dead links pointing to it) and nobody bothered to fill it in with more info, so it didn't prove very useful. Perhaps it's better to just put it out of its misery.--MCBastos (talk) 21:18, 16 February 2012 (UTC)


 * A lot of news results for them, mostly just talking about them licensing something, or about their software which gets great coverage. I see you also nominated modo (software).  It has ample and obvious coverage.   D r e a m Focus  21:59, 16 February 2012 (UTC)


 * This nomination perplexes me. I got piles of coverage at MacWorld and Gamasutra and I didn't try very hard. Methinks you should just withdraw the nomination, ditto for the modo article.--The Devil&#39;s Advocate (talk) 23:35, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Northamerica1000(talk) 11:04, 17 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep Many sources cover the software and the company.   D r e a m Focus  16:32, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
 * There are much stronger sources you could cite than that one Dream.--The Devil&#39;s Advocate (talk) 21:49, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
 * If you see any, add them. A lot of results to read through.   D r e a m Focus  23:10, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions.  — Frankie (talk) 21:07, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions.  — Frankie (talk) 21:07, 17 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep possible merge The following sources seem to establish notability pretty well:    . Now, the last is a review of the product, but what makes it significant is that it is a rave review of the product and company from someone that also appears to be a big player in the biz. Now, that said, it seems there should really only be one independent article so a merge is likely in order. I think, given that the company itself is mentioned often, the article on modo should be merged here rather than this article being merged there.--The Devil&#39;s Advocate (talk) 00:27, 18 February 2012 (UTC)


 * I know almost nothing about this field (computer animation) but even hitting google books for a couple of minutes indicates that this is a significant company & product.    What we lack here are not sources but some editor(s) to improve the article(s). ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 12:29, 24 February 2012 (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.