Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sony Ziris


 * 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. -- Cirt (talk) 00:32, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Sony Ziris

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Obvious WP:COI, WP:SPA & WP:PROMOTION. Nothing of note about the product. ▫  Johnny Mr Nin ja  10:37, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions.


 * Delete. This is a professional Digital Signage software application; it makes marquees and menus for electronic billboards and similar displays.  No showing that this particular product is likely to be remembered in the time scale needed to get into an encyclopedia. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 14:16, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't know how to properly respond to this discussion because the talk button is red. The article highlights the basic information about this particular digital signage software. If you are looking for further articles of a similar kind then please have a look at the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_signage_product_comparison page. In general, nearly every DS vendor lists their products or their company on Wikipedia, most of them providing little information but marketing tools. The article debated here can certainly be expanded to include more relevant information but I certainly disagree that it should be deleted. I have taken example of the Sony Vegas software page to clone the outline and was intending to expand the page when I have more time. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sony_Vegas —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.212.199.56 (talk) 15:02, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
 * While the fact that other articles exist is not usually considered a strong argument to keep any particular article, this response may not be all that satisfactory. It's not unreasonable for a new edihttp://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Sony_Ziris&action=edittor to judge the suitability of a topic by what's already here. The narrow, focused diligence of PR professionals often outpaces the capacity of generalist volunteer editors to patrol.  Still, it's been a long standing problem that dozens of minor software vendors in crowded fields and limited general interest view Wikipedia as a good place to get free publicity for their products.  I generally tend to the opinion that businesses and products need to show some sort of significant effect on history, culture, or at least the technical development of the field before becoming entitled to a stand alone article.  Almost no digital sign software is going to meet that test, I reckon.  I will have a look at the articles on that page. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 15:44, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:03, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Please note the somewhat-related Articles for deletion/Digital signage product comparison. ▫  Johnny Mr Nin ja  06:16, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I have nothing against the removal of this page if other DS software/player related pages are deleted as well, seeing as it goes outside of the scope of what WP tends to include within an encyclopaedia, however could any of the WP gurus please clarify why software related pages such as http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sony_Vegas, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/VirtualDubMod, etc. are allowed to exist, and even categorized within http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Video_editing_software ? If DS software is considered a non significant software to exist in WP then I would deem the same to be valid for video editing software. 86.21.122.101 (talk) 18:28, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * It is not that digital signage software is not allowed to exist here, it is that digital signage software does not get media attention. It is software aimed at businesses, and so very few journalists are going to cover it, outside of maybe trade magazines. The fact that there few in-depth articles on any DS software means that we cannot include it on Wikipedia. WP is a tertiary source, meaning we only cover secondary sources (at least, that is the hope). If there are other articles or topics that fall into a similar situation, please feel free to nominate them for deletion. WP is run by volunteers, and the "anyone can edit" motto means that there are far more problems than anyone has time or desire to deal with. WP does not list everything that exists. Obviously a business seeing a competitors product listed means that they wish for theirs to be listed too, but if it hasn't been significantly covered by secondary sources, it shouldn't be mentioned on WP. The logic in the statements above is: your kids want dinner, but children are starving in Africa, so you can't feed your kids unless you feed Africa too. This deletion discussion is about fixing one problem, the fact that it doesn't fix every problem doesn't make it invalid. Hopefully someone will get to the others in due time, but right now I have the time and inclination to fix one problem. ▫  Johnny Mr Nin ja  07:21, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I've nominated VirtualDubMod for deletion. On the other hand, Sony Vegas is certainly notable having significant independent coverage., including a book published by Focal Press (several editions)  I hope this helps clarify the difference. FuFoFuEd (talk) 08:39, 29 May 2011 (UTC)


 * This product may be notable. It gets some mentions in the mainstream press and in industry sites other than the super-niche digital signage ones, e.g.   More investigation is needed. FuFoFuEd (talk) 06:07, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
 * It also gets mentioned in a few academic-like papers (IEEE etc.) on display walls . FuFoFuEd (talk) 09:53, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
 *  Weak keep. There are also some articles about it in Pro AV magazine. . This magazine seems to be of sufficiently general interest that people, *ugh* pirate it, which you can convince yoursevelves by googling its name. FuFoFuEd (talk) 09:39, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I've done a bit of work on the article. I think the sum of references justifies keeping it. There's also a claim of technical novelty here. I've not seen other companies' products demoed with odd shaped and mixed orientation displays; click through some of the references for pictures, e.g. FuFoFuEd (talk) 10:30, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep FuFoFuEd has found coverage.  D r e a m Focus  07:44, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete: that twelve sources are required to reference only 5 sentences argues strongly that depth of coverage is lacking. Likewise most of what little coverage there is appears to be limited to fairly specialised trade mags (cf WP:NBOOKS requirement that "at least some of these works serving a general audience"). HrafnTalkStalk(P) 17:01, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep What FuFoFuEd has identified is indeed correct, there is a circumstance of technical novelty seeing as the Canvas product does something unique. Furthermore it is quite rare to have a B2B product running on PlayStation hardware which makes it notable. Another fact for notability is that it is part of a large array of softwares released by the Sony Corporation, of which Vegas is also a part. — 94.68.229.41 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Keep The software is novel in that it is commercial software running on the PS3, a very rare thing. In any case, the tags you have added (WP:COI, WP:SPA & WP:PROMOTION) seem irrelevant given the tone and factual nature of the article. None of them suggest that the page should be deleted simply because you might not find it in an encyclopaedia, I can quote tens of thousands of wikipages that would fit into that category, starting with synopsis of TV episodes, games software, synopses of books e.t.c. I would suggest your time would be better spent fixing poor articles or adding new articles then trying to delete perfectly usable ones. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.143.178.131 (talk) 12:23, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
 * keep I don't see any reason to remove this Pjcard (talk) 20:26, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
 * A very important mainstream media referral has been added today: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-13581453 195.46.128.6 (talk) 20:28, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
 * More coverage - http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-13581453 Pjcard (talk) 20:30, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Weak delete. I spent 30 minutes evaluating this for a close but wimped out so I'll !vote instead. The nominator's concerns about WP:COI are valid but that can be fixed by normal editing. I found Hrafn's delete argument completely unconvincing because there's a difference between "sources" used to cite information in the article and "sources" used to demonstrate notability at AFD (the latter doesn't even need to be in the article, it's enough that coverage exists) and I don't see how WP:NBOOKS comes into play here. However, of all the sources presented here only this one comes close to being a supersource. The other from the same magazine looks like a press release but I'm willing to be convinced otherwise. The rest don't look like significant coverage but again, I'm willing to be convinced otherwise. Now for something that is just my opinion. A decent argument for inclusion based on this level of sourcing could be made for an open source project but I think the bar needs to be a little higher for commercial software. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:59, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz Humbug! 06:26, 3 June 2011 (UTC)




 * Keep. It's a very useful product that has become notable in the way that it is used and easily meets WP:GNG.  Nipson anomhmata   (Talk) 09:36, 3 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep FuFoFuEd has found coverage, and meets WP:GNG. --DThomsen8 (talk) 21:02, 3 June 2011 (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.