Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PTgui (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. No one (apart of one IP user, whose complaints can be addressed through cleanup anyway) argues in favour of deletion, and the nominator apparently withdrew this. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 08:14, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

PTgui

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Covered on other pages - only non-associated editors should comment on this page for validity. The last round was dominated by vendors and their support group to keep the page. John Spikowski 20:40, 17 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep -- To keep myself unbiased, I didn't read the previous afd. I know nothing about this product. I read the article, and googled the product. It does pass WP:NOTE in my mind. However, the article itself is in terrible shape and reads like an advertising brochure. -- MisterHand 22:57, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment -- I should mention the sponsors of John Spikowski are Kekus, RealVis, Easypano,.... which are competing products to PTgui. All other programs are listed in suggested replacement page Panorama Stitchers, Viewers and Utilities with very shiny words and promo talk. You call yourself unbiased? Why should PTgui not have its own page?  --Wuz 23:45, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment -- I have not referenced the group I support on any of the pages. I will let others make the determination if the PanoTools group should be added as a resource. The PanoTools groups few sponsors also support many of the other panorama portals and support groups. Please focus on why PTgui should have it's own page on the Wikipedia. John Spikowski 00:03, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I am not talking about your page, I am talking about your sponsors that are all listed. --Wuz 00:19, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
 * The page list all the active panorama solutions I know of. (not just my few sponsors that contribute $50 a month to keep the server going) I have no personal reasons for building this page other then to not repeat the same mistakes made on the PanoToolsNG wiki project where it's very difficult to find anything. John Spikowski 00:43, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
 * So you get each month money from those companies and you want us to believe that you are unbiased and we are on the same mailing list as the author of PtGui and heavy users (and paying customers) and we are more biased then you? --Wuz 01:13, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
 * When did the PTgui promotional page on the Wikipedia become a forum for non-profit group facilities funding? Can you PLEASE stay on topic? Attacking me isn't going to convince anyone that the PTgui, Hugin (software) and your Pano2QTVR topics deserve their own pages. Bias or not isn't the issue here. John Spikowski 01:20, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I think everyone should be aware of your motivations to file the second AfD for this aricle within 5 days. --Wuz 01:26, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
 * The discussion for removal was never resolved and notablity not established. (the reason it was nominated for inclusion in the combined resource) John Spikowski 02:06, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep, seems to pass notability guidelines. There seems to have been issues on product promotions and bias on this article and its related topics. I will have to see how this ends... Sr13 01:39, 18 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Request Would someone submit to the discussion page a list of Panorama Stitchers, Viewers and Utilities that you believe should have their own page? John Spikowski 04:32, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
 * keep —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.9.186.151 (talk • contribs).
 * Keep The article should be kept page. Why hate ?? Dominique Salino
 * Dominique, I don't hate PTgui, I think it's a wonderful product and the reason I'm trying to get it on a page where people will find it. If you knew nothing about panorama photography and did a search and PTgui and Panorama Stitchers, Viewers and Utilities links were presented. Which link would you click on? John Spikowski 07:56, 18 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep The article should be kept. Strange enough, the only person disturbed by this article is John Spikowski.
 * Not disturbed at all. Just trying to clean up the bad wiki habits a few NG members brought with them. John Spikowski 09:28, 18 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment Why does the nominater himself close a AfD that was established only one day ago? Just for the record my entry to the debate just follows.Einemnet 10:10, 18 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep I'm no user of that particular software but know about it for years. Respectable software, widely known for panorama enthusiasts. Deserves it's own article (and more content). Comment: This AfD is IMHO connected with the nominators interest in a different article where PTgui as well as other somehow related applications are only summarized. As a user of this kind of software and a regular contributor I can see no benefit in that other concept to group every panorama related software in one single article. Einemnet 10:12, 18 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Remove. Very good software and I use it but it is advertising straight from the program's web site.  For those who say keep, should we add pages for Autopano Pro, PTAssembler, PTMac, CubicConverter, etc?75.52.144.100 13:09, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Please give us proof for your claim that parts of the wikipedia are copied from a copyrighted source, thanks! - Articles for PTMac and CubicConnector are appreciated, I would be happy to contribute. I know not enough about Autopano/AutopanoPro or PTAssembler, but am also interested in more information. After all it doesn't hurt to have articles for specialized topics, the number of pages in the wikipedia is AFAIK not limited.  Einemnet 13:34, 18 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep. Keep them both and make them link to each other. It is not like we are short on space or something.  Let the user decide what they want to read.


 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached  Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Daniel  06:42, 19 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep, seems mildly notable. Should be taken to cleanup stat though, as the article is in a terrible state.  Lankiveil 07:03, 19 May 2007 (UTC).
 * I just scroll through the last edits of the article and see that the last edits by John Spikowski introduce several big errors: Revision as of 22:26, 18 May 2007 The software now seems to "support a number of standard and wide angle lenses" which is completely wrong since not only input images from a list of supported lenses from standard to wide angle focal lengths are supported. All panorama tools based stitching applications instead accept every sort of input image, even mixed types in one project, no matter if any kind of fisheye lens, wide angle lenses, images from panoramic cameras (cylindrical projection), readily stitched panoramas (e.g. equirectangular for full spheres), just everything you want to stitch or correct inside PTgui. Why is John Spikowski downgrading the value of the article instead of improving it? The broad range of possible input images (also file types like 8 bit JPG, 16 bit TIFF etc.) is one of the strengths of PTgui. Thanks to Johns new wording (introducing several "you do this/that" phrases) the article looks more and more like an advertisement brochure. - Next edit from same contributor: PTgui's output now changes from "final image output generation" to a "project" which is complete nonsense. In a summary: with this AfD nominator who is pushing the article itself to it's very limits we just can save every debate. AfD nominator is completely biased in favour of deletion, q.e.d. -- Einemnet 09:31, 19 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Speedy close, nominator has withdrawn AFD. --Dhartung | Talk 09:21, 19 May 2007 (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.