Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Modo (software) (2nd nomination)


 * 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. (non-admin closure) NemesisAT (talk) 22:56, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

Modo (software)
AfDs for this article:


 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

Software doesn't seem to meet WP:NPRODUCT - the sole independent sources that are focussed on the product are 1) an announcement on Macworld about the release of an updated version and 2) a paragraph in an Aristek Systems comparison of 9 software programs. This doesn't seem sufficient to pass as significant in-depth coverage? MrsSnoozyTurtle 09:11, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:11, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 20:36, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep Notability isn't based on the sources present in an article, but the sources available in the world. A quick WP:BEFORE search shows multiple review articles (,, , and ) and books (, ,, and ). These are sufficient sources with which to write an article describing modo and to satisfy WP:GNG. --  08:19, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
 * True. Agree with Keep, I think there are sufficient sources. Jawad Haqbeen (talk) 02:02, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep I and others in the Article Rescue Squadron participated in the first AFD of this article ten years ago, and found significant coverage in reliable sources. I find many of the links no longer work, but notability is not temporary, and sources don't have to be accessible online to count.  The total coverage found was enough to convince everyone back then.  The Animation Magazine review still works.  Mark viking found a review in PC World, so that's another reliable source.    D r e a m Focus  08:50, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.


 * Comment: Given there were three 'keep' !votes, no delete opinions beyond the nom, and general agreement that the nom failed BEFORE, I don't see the point in relisting. &mdash; Charles Stewart (talk) 13:49, 21 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep: adequate sources appear to exist; nom failed to do BEFORE check. &mdash; Charles Stewart (talk) 13:49, 21 July 2022 (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.