Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/TruDef


 * 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 -- JForget  00:22, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

TruDef

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Unverifiable and Non-Neutral Spot (talk) 01:07, 6 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment Its interesting to note Scott Draves (Spot) has been editing his own Wikipedia pages in blatant violation of NPOV policy. The pages in question are Scott Draves and Fractal Flames. I am by no means an expert on dealing with such obvious violations of Wikipedia's policy so I ask for assistance in putting a stop to his blatant self promotion and hawking of wares.--Editor5435 (talk) 03:11, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

The TruDef article is for a unreleased product of a company (TMMI) and is sourced only from their web page, in violation of WP:V. The text reads like an advertisement in violation of WP:NPOV. This is total corporate vanity. The editor responsible is an WP:SPA that goes by two names, Editor5435 and Technodo. It should be removed forthwith. Spot (talk) 01:07, 6 March 2008 (UTC) (refactored per User_talk:Spot --Ronz (talk) 15:57, 6 March 2008 (UTC))


 * Invalid comment, verification has been provided that SoftVideo has a history of commercial use. SoftVideo has been renamed TruDef.--Editor5435 (talk) 07:49, 6 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment See Talk:Fractal compression for some history of the dispute between Spot and Editor5435. --Canley (talk) 02:14, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete Issues of editor disagreement and conduct aside, this article does not go far enough in citing independent sources.--Pgagnon999 (talk) 02:38, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete This article indeed has multiple issues, and I doubt they can be remedied, so for now it's best to delete it. Once we have plenty of independent reviews on the performance of the compression, sources talking about its use in high profile products, and scientific papers examining the algorithm and citing it as the one commercial success using this technology, a new article can be created. Or actually, even if one of those happens and to a lesser extent, I think it would be enough. Some gaming magazine spending half a page on how this codec made the video quality in the games it was used so much better probably would make it borderline - but the manual of a game is not an independent source and won't help. --Minimaki (talk) 13:20, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete The article can be restored at a later date when more content is available. Currently it consists of a single sentence which specifies a name change and reference showing prior use of the software.  Its not very important and certainly not worth all of this controversy and libelous statemenst made by a certain individual.--Editor5435 (talk) 16:38, 6 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment SoftVideo is almost an exact duplicate of TruDef. --Ronz (talk) 23:11, 6 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I believe the only difference is a name change but never the less provides readers with useful information who may search that name.--Editor5435 (talk) 23:22, 6 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete Not encyclopedic. To keep, it would require a lot of fixing.Mm40 (talk) 23:59, 6 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree, the amount of work involved is overwhelming, I'm in favor of deletion. Readers can always search Google.--Editor5435 (talk) 00:18, 7 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete this unreferenced factoid. Guy (Help!) 19:31, 7 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment Ok it's been five days and nobody has stood up to keep this page. I think it's time to close it and would prefer if someone more neutral than I could handle this process (but I will get to it in a couple of days otherwise). Spot (talk) 22:09, 11 March 2008 (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.