Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Scenera Research (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   delete. Black Kite (talk) 05:34, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Scenera Research
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  •  Stats )

Entry is not worthy of wikipedia page (Notability, based on WP:NOTE and WP:CORP) and seems to have become a running argument between two parties which is beneath wikipedia. Wikipedia has dispute resolution practices. I don't recall article deletion being part of that process. I don't believe any attempt has been made to resolve any disputes for this pages.--Zepheydog (talk) 22:24, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Articles for deletion/Log/2012 June 16.  Snotbot   t &bull; c &raquo;  16:31, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment – I have to point out that "a running argument between two parties" is all too typical of what wikipedia is about. But in this case it doesn't appear relevant as an AfD criteria. Regards, RJH (talk) 17:00, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 01:13, 17 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete The only reference with in-depth coverage doesn't actually mention the name of this company. A move to FotoMedia might be worth considering if more refs come to light. Stuartyeates (talk) 01:37, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger One ping only 18:26, 23 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete through lack of reliable sources that specifically mention the name of the company in the head of the article -- or Merge/Move to FotoMedia as per Stuartyeates. I found nothing about Scenera Research that demonstrated any notability.  I haven't looked to see if FotoMedia is notable (no time today).  Ubelowme (talk) 19:56, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment I couldn't seem to locate Articles for deletion/Scenera Research, the first AfD process. Could someone kindly link to that, if it exists?  Thanks in advance.  Ubelowme (talk) 19:59, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
 * DeleteI added more sources. I agree a move/merge to FotoMedia makes sense if its news coverage qualifies it as notable.--Zepheydog (talk) 22:54, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete Agree with the above. Callitlikeicit —Preceding undated comment added 13:08, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete - No coverage in reliable sources. -- Whpq (talk) 13:58, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Merge-Move I can see questioning some of the sources as they are blogs. The writer of the "priorart" blog, Joe Mullin, is a professional news reporter. Still, it is a blog. On the other hand, if Law.com and Law360.com aren't reliable sources, then most articles on Wikipedia don't have reliable sources. Both these sources are relied upon and highly regarded in the legal community. Masshightech.com is well staffed with editors and reporters - and is owned by American City Business Journals, the largest owner of city business journals in the country. There hasn't been any dispute about the correctness of the information in the article.  --Zepheydog (talk) 01:46, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
 * The issue is not that they're blogs. The issue is that they don't discuss the subject in great detail. Stuartyeates (talk) 02:00, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Ah. I understand. Thanks. I mis-parsed Whpq's posting. The references clearly are all focused on Fotomedia Technologies and not Scenera Research.--Zepheydog (talk) 15:57, 30 June 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.