Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/TwistedBrush Pro Studio


 * 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. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:30, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

TwistedBrush Pro Studio

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  Stats )

Digital painting software that does not appear to pass WP:GNG, judging by the arguments presented in the talk page discussion where the PROD tag was contested, and by the references presented in the article and found in a Google search. There are the usual mentions in WP:SPS and software listings, but apparently no substantial coverage in reliable sources. If nonetheless kept, the article would need a rewrite because it reads like an advertisement.  Sandstein  05:54, 17 June 2012 (UTC)


 * I have presented many links to reviews of paint programs on the talk page of the article and in the external links in the article. Twistedbrush is ranked high in many reviews of paint programs. Please read through those links before deciding this issue. I have already suggested to  Sandstein   to tell me in what way this article reads like an advertisement so I and other editors can change that but he has not defined what parts of the article reads like an advertisement so we can change it. I can not see any difference between this article and the articles about Pixia, Artweaver, and many other paint program articles. My suggestion is to not delete it. Instead if user Sandstein thinks it reads like an advertisement please tell us in what way so we can change it. Roger491127 (talk) 06:20, 17 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete. Does not meet WP:GNG even though it is mentioned in lists of graphics software programs. The program has not won any awards nor has it been singled out for non-trivial consideration in a magazine or newspaper article. No third party books have devoted paragraphs to it. Binksternet (talk) 06:50, 17 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep. When Binksternet says it has not won any awards he is simply wrong. Look at http://www.pixarra.com/sketchbook_reviews.html and you can see more awards than I can count. (Twistedbrush was earlier called Sketchbook and the old name still lingers on some pages of the program's web site http://www.pixarra.com/ ) On the same page you can also find links to reviews. The link to mrswizard.com/ needs a more specific url: http://mrswizard.com/gem_twistedbrush.html. (Or you can do as I did, go to http://mrswizard.com/, choose Software reviews, choose Gems, Graphics, and you find Twistedbrush. And note that of the 13 programs mentioned in the section Gems-Graphics only one program, Twistedbrush, can actually be used for digital painting. PaintShop Pro was bought up by Corel several years ago and was transformed into a photo retouch program. The other Gems in that list are about screen capture, camera capture, web page creation, etc..) And Twistedbrush has been ranked very high by many independent reviewers, as I have showed in many links on its talk page. When it comes to magazines, newspapers and books I doubt you can find much about any paint programs except maybe for those made by the three big corporations, Microsoft, Corel and Photoshop.Roger491127 (talk) 13:02, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 19:54, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 19:54, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

I have checked through the page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Deletion_sorting/Visual_arts, and the archive of earlier discussions there and I note that all the other discussions are about persons (artists). So I am surprised that software like the digital painting, and image processing, program Twistedbrush has been submitted to that discussion. The Twistedbrush article has also been submitted to the page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Deletion_sorting/Software where it fits much better, so I suggest that the Twistedbrush article should only be discussed in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Deletion_sorting/Software which is the proper place to discuss articles about software. Roger491127 (talk) 04:57, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Actually, it is not being discussed on any of them, but rather here. Sorting simply reproduces the discussion on those lists to attract the attention of editors who may have expertise and knowledge of the subject, but any comment made will take place on this page regardless — Frankie (talk) 13:19, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

— CreativelyStructured (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. 
 * Strong Keep. TwistedBrush is a program that has earned a high level of loyalty among its users, due to its versatility and responsive community, among other traits.  It consistently has gotten strong referrals for several years, at least since 2007, in the publication PC Utilities, a British publication, which has noted its flexibility.  The fact that a European source would be aware of it, and regard it highly as consumer friendly software, as a good resource for creative activity, speaks signigicantly of its tendency to impress those who test it.  A view of the gallery of its users will be testimony to its graphic ability in producing quality digital art.    — Preceding unsigned comment added by CreativelyStructured (talk • contribs) 01:35, 23 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, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 24 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom, reads as an advertisement...Modernist (talk) 19:33, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

I have written most of the article, and to make sure it doesn't read as an advertisement I have been very careful to only describe, in a neutral tone, the technical properties of the program. I have asked the people who say it reads as an advertisement in what way it reads like an advertisement, so we can change how the article is formulated, but so far nobody has replied to that question. Anyhow, this voting procedure is not about how the article is formulated, this voting procedure is intended to determine the notability of the program Twistedbrush, so the vote from Modernist (talk) is invalid because he has voted in the wrong discussion. If there ever will be a voting about how the article is formulated his vote can be counted there.

Modernist (talk) did not give any valid arguments to show that TwistedBrush Pro Studio lacks in notability, and the reasons Binksternet gave have been shown to be faulty. Only I and CreativelyStructured (talk) have given valid arguments which show the notability of Twistedbrush. Most of my arguments can be read in the discussion page to the article.

The only wikipedia rule mentioned in the start of this voting procedure is WP:GNG, so notability and nothing else is what this voting procedure is about. People who say that this article reads as an advertisement should start by describing in what way this article reads as an advertisement so we can take care of that issue, but that is not the issue we are voting about here. And this is not the proper place for that issue. Roger491127 (talk) 01:08, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Please check up the 10-15 web sites I have found, and mentioned in the external links list and in the article talk page before you vote, because in practically all such ranking sites I have found Twistedbrush ranked among the top ten, and often in the top 5 of paint programs. If you can find an overwhelming number of sites (40 or more) which rank paint programs, and they rank Twistedbrush at a non-notable rank of 30 or worse, I will accept that on an overwhelming number of sites which rank paint programs Twistedbrush is ranked as a non-notable paint program. And it will also show me that for some very strange reason I have stumbled upon the only 10-15 sites which rank Twistedbrush very very high among paint programs. A very strange coincidence indeed, as I have used search terms as "best paint program", "best digital painting software" and many similar search expressions. Roger491127 (talk) 08:01, 25 June 2012 (UTC)


 * The only wikipedia rule mentioned in the start of this voting procedure is WP:GNG, so notability and nothing else is what this voting procedure is about. - first of all, this is WP:NOTAVOTE, and Wikipedia is not a democracy. Secondly, anything can be "what this...procedure is about", it is not limited to the nominator's arguments. - The Bushranger One ping only 20:41, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Sorry for calling this "a voting procedure", It looked like that to me and I didn't know what else to call it. Anyhow, since this AfD|T began I have been able to find a lot more references which show the notability of Twistedbrush. So I ask those who wrote Delete, and others who come here, to read the talk page to the article, at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:TwistedBrush_Pro_Studio and maybe re-consider your Delete-comment in this AfD. To begin from the bottom of that page I have found 3 books and one statement from Tony Johansen, Director East Sydney Academy of Art, also statements from at least 3 very good artists (digital painters) and countless rankings from web sites which review and rank paint programs. So the reference material which was available when this AfD|T started has been complemented with a lot more material, including "substantial coverage in reliable sources". Roger491127 (talk) 06:41, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Also sorry for thinking this discussion is about notability and nothing else. That was the impression I got as WP:GNG is the only rule referred to in the start of the discussion. I thought that we could handle the issue of notability here and close this AfD, after that we can discuss the issue "reads like an advertisement" on the talk page of the article. But if you want to discuss that issue here too I again invite those who think it "reads like an advertisement" to explain in what way it "reads like an advertisement", so I can rewrite it to get rid of that issue too. But as I have been very careful to avoid any positive statement about Twistedbrush in the article, only describing the technical features of the program in a neutral tone, I can not understand how it "reads like an advertisement". Roger491127 (talk) 08:21, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

In my view it is more rational to take care of the most important issue first, in this case notability, and after that issue has been dealt with, we know if this article should be kept or deleted. Only after that issue has been decided there is reason to discuss how the article should be formulated, because if the article is deleted based on lack of notability there is no reason to discuss how to formulate the article. If we discuss both the existence of the article and the formulation of the article simultaneously we are wasting our efforts and it becomes a confused and irrational discussion.

And that is also why I have not worked much with the article since the notability of Twistedbrush was questioned and the existence of the article was threatened. It is a waste of effort to work on an article which is threatened with deletion. So I have concentrated on collecting evidence which shows the notability of Twistedbrush. If the result of this discussion is that the article should be kept I can use a lot of the material I have gathered to make the article better. Roger491127 (talk) 08:41, 3 July 2012 (UTC) 
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:32, 3 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete This reads like a promotional leaflet! If that was the only problem, then it could probably be dealt with (AfD is not for clean up, after all) - but I see no evidence that this meets the notability criteria. The list of awards they show on the website appear to be almost wholely made up from non-notable websites (non-notable as Wikipedia defines it, some of them may well be very good websites, even if hardly any of them are ones which I personally know of). When I saw a link to CNET, my hopes were raised - but there is no review by CNET staffers, just the company's own description - user reviews are not counted as reliable enough. All in all, I see nothing which would convince me that this meets the criteria for inclusion  Phantom Steve / talk &#124; contribs \ 00:07, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

I agree with your view of CNET, that is not one of the stronger reasons to keep the article, if you disregard all the user reviews and look only for CNET staffers views. But obviously you did not read all the evidence of notability and high rankings I have collected on the talk page of the article, like this, for example: At http://www.diaryofanartist.com/software_painting.html Tony Johansen, Director East Sydney Academy of Art has reviewed practically all painting programs in existence. He says this about Twistedbrush: "When I made my list of top ten painting programs there were three that all could easily be number one. I chose Painter for number one only because it comes in both Mac and Windows versions. If Twisted Brush had a Macintosh version I would put it at number one. Its that good."

If this is not a voting procedure but a discussion with the aim of reaching consensus, why are people just adding a vote and then disappear, why are these people not staying and participate in a discussion? How can we reach a consensus if people do not participate in a discussion? If people only make a very superficial review of the issue and leave a Delete comment with little or no reason this looks more like a voting procedure than a discussion with the goal of reaching consensus. Why are people who participate in this AfD not reading all the reviews and comments I have linked to in the talk page of the article?

Look at Binksternet's Delete comment, for example: "Does not meet WP:GNG even though it is mentioned in lists of graphics software programs. The program has not won any awards nor has it been singled out for non-trivial consideration in a magazine or newspaper article. No third party books have devoted paragraphs to it." His arguments have been shown to be faulty on most points. I have found 4 books (on google books which are seen as good sources in wikipedia) mentioning Twistedbrush as one of the best painting programs. (5 books if I could count a book found on Amazon dot com, but for some reason Amazon dot com is blacklisted in wikipedia). Twistedbrush has not only been mentioned in program lists (as Binksternet writes), it has been ranked very high in many web sites comparing and ranking paint programs. CreativelyStructured (talk) Told us that Twistedbrush "consistently has gotten strong referrals for several years, at least since 2007, in the publication PC Utilities, a British publication". And among its awards you can find several "Editors choice" awards. So the only point in Binksternet's comment which has not been disproven is "mentioned in newspapers", but how often do you see software reviews in newspapers? I have never seen one. But thanks to Binksternet for at least mentioning several reasons for his comment.

If we count New York Times web site for software reviews as a part of a newspaper we find a very favorable review of Twistedbrush by Sue Chastain, hired by New York Times as a graphics software expert. Roger491127 (talk) 01:01, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete per Phantomsteve. I also concur with Sandstein that the article as is, if kept, would need to be rewritten per WP:NOTADVERTISING. While it might be a good program (and indeed, I'm not one to judge whether graphics programs are good), I tend to agree that this product does not meet criteria for inclusion. Velinath (talk) 15:03, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment that if notable sources are being found they should be added to the article and not kept on the talk page. Velinath (talk) 15:05, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Okay, I have now added the notable sources to the article.

Another thing, could you who want to contribute to this discussion please declare your qualifications. How much experience and knowledge do you have of paint programs?

I have used Photoshop for 1 hour, Corel Painter for 2 hours, Gimp and Gimpshop for several hours, Pixia for 20 hours, Paintshop Pro, version seven for 50 hours, (last version before Corel bought it up and changed it into a retouch program). Artweaver for 5 hours, Artrage for 1 hour. I have used Twistedbrush for more than 15 hours. I have used Project Dogwaffle Professional for 10 hours, and tested its followers PD Particles and PD Howler. I have tested microsoft Paint and Paint.NET. I have used Ultimate Paint. I use FastStone Image Viewer as my image viewer but also for quick retouch operations, because even though it is mainly a viewer program it has a lot of image retouch capabilities. For example when working with old photos, they often have too much contrast, so all light colored areas are white and darker areas are black. By adjusting the gamma value and brightness you can make an old photo show a lot more details than was visible to begin with. I have used PhotoFiltre for several hours. The program Image Analyzer has even more special features for image retouch purposes. And I have studied the development of paint programs for 10 years, and real-world painting with oil and acrylic colors for many years.

I have studied the theory of painting for many years. 2 years ago I discovered the web site http://realcolorwheel.com/ by Donald Jusko and I have spent more than 10 hours studying it. He does not use digital paint programs but his knowledge can be applied to both real world and software painting. I have made around 25 paintings in different software programs, and around 10 which I am still working on. I have made around 35 real world paintings in oil and acrylic paint.

I have watched hundreds of painting lessons by Bob Ross and I have studied his teacher William Alexander. These painters are impressive in how they can produce a very nice painting in half an hour, but Donald Jusko is more advanced theoretically.

What knowledge and experiences do you guys have?

I have also studied the wikipedia articles about all other painting programs and researched the notability of those programs. When I searched the web with search expressions like "best paint program", "best painting software", "best digital art software" and many similar search expressions I found that Twistedbrush is ranked very high on most ranking sites and most of the other paint programs which have articles about them in wikipedia can not even be found in the top 20 of those ranking lists. So if we set the notability limit above Twistedbrush we must delete the articles about practically all other paint programs. And I found that the articles about the other paint programs read a lot more like advertisements, many positive adjectives written by the editors of those articles. So practically all of those articles have to be deleted, if we use the criteria you who voted delete for this article have used. Roger491127 (talk) 06:47, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
 * My main experience in this situation is my knowledge of the notability criteria for articles on Wikipedia! Although the articles about "all other painting programs" may likewise not meet notability criteria (I haven't checked), that is not really the issue here. We are considering whether this article should be in Wikipedia, and I stand by my opinion above that this should be deleted. Those of us who are commenting here do not have to look for other articles to be deleted - although if you want to leave some links to them on my talk page, I am certainly happy to look at them and if necessary nominate some of them for deletion, subject to my time being available to do that! However, that has nothing to do with this current discussion - see here. Regards,  Phantom Steve / talk &#124; contribs \ 21:19, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Okay. The article about Pixia should be deleted because Pixia lacks in notability, the article reads like an advertisement and lacks references. Furthermore, the last version of Pixia has been released for those who liked the program and the author is now concentrating on a new program called Pierha, so the program Pixia has effectively disappeared. A new program named Pierha is released in its first beta versions and has no notability at all. Maybe one day, several years into the future, the program Pierha may reach notability enough to motivate an article in wikipedia, and in that case Pixia could maybe be mentioned as a predecessor in the Pierha article. The main site which supported Pixia, http://www.ab.wakwak.com/~knight/, has been removed from the web, most likely because the program has reached the end of its existence. When I searched for rankings for Twistedbrush I found many high rankings for Twistedbrush but Pixia was not included in any of those ranking lists. So if Twistedbrush is lacking in notability, the program Pixia has no notability at all.

And, by the way, the articles about all other paint programs (and graphic editors in general), except maybe for those produced by Photoshop and Adobe (Corel) should also be deleted, as they are all less notable than Twistedbrush. Check up my list of ranking sites for paint programs and you will see that I am right. Photoshop and Corel are also ranked lower than Twistedbrush in ranking sites, but they are rich companies so the notability for them can probably be motivated by being mentioned in books and magazines. So there should only be two articles about paint programs (graphic editors) in wikipedia. One about Photoshop and the variants of Photoshop, and one about Adobe Corel and its graphical editor programs.When Corel bought Paintshop Pro more than 10 years ago there were only 3 well known graphical editors in the market. By buying PsP Corel got rid of one of its two competitors in the paint program field, and by transforming PsP into a photo retouch program Corel added another type of graphical editor to its suite of graphical editors. Corel already had Corel Painter as their flagship in the painting category. Photoshop and Corel develop very slowly and concentrate more about covering the whole price range, so they have a full featured product which is very expensive, an "essentials" product for half the price, and a low price product, so they have something for every wallet. Photoshop is developed slowly because it it serves mainly as a shell program for thousands of plugins. It is like an aircraft carrier from WWII, the same old steel shell can be used for a long time, while its old diesel engines are replaced by nuclear power plants and turbine engines, and its weapons are constantly upgraded, new computer systems, new radars and new missiles are attached to the old steel shell. But the main interface of Photoshop is still as bad and hard to work with as it was 10 years ago, while newer programs like Twistedbrush have been developed into programs with much better interfaces and are a lot easier to work with. Big corporations like Photoshop and Corel do not have to listen to their users, they have enough money to advertise and convince people that their interface is good, while smaller, one-man companies, listen to their users and develop their programs constantly. Roger491127 (talk) 06:51, 7 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete - In the end, Wikipedia's inclusion criteria boils down to having significant coverage in independent reliable sources. The article, as the time of this comment, has no reliable sources attesting to notability.  I searched on my own and found press releases, but no significant independent coverage. -- Whpq (talk) 16:59, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Like all the others who voted Delete I guess you did not bother to use any of all the links I have supplied to show the notability of Twistedbrush. There are four books, four statements from painters and experts on paint programs (one of them on New York Times web site for software reviews, another Tony Johansen, Director East Sydney Academy of Art), one computer magazine and around 15 ranking sites for paint programs (and general graphic editors) among my links, but you obviously see all these sources as "no reliable sources". Roger491127 (talk) 15:25, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Reply - You are wrong about me reviewing the links. I did.  You are right about my view of those sources.  they are not reliable. -- Whpq (talk) 15:58, 10 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your reply. You are the first who defends his vote. But I still can not understand how you can deem all these sources as unreliable. If you apply the same criteria to all other graphics editors I must assume that you want to delete all articles about graphics editors, because you can hardly find more reliable and numerous evidence for better notability for any other paint programs, or graphics editors in general, except maybe for the two big corporations Adobe and Photoshop and their products. Roger491127 (talk) 16:12, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
 * The state of other articles is not relevant to this deletion discussion. Those other articles may also need to be deleted, or perhaps there are references that could be added to them.  Regardless, the sourcing for this article does not establish notability.  -- Whpq (talk) 16:31, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Can I as an editor nominate articles to an AfD for deletion or can only admins do such nominations? Roger491127 (talk) 16:44, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Replied on your talk page. -- Whpq (talk) 17:28, 10 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Reply to "The state of other articles is not relevant to this deletion discussion. " by Whpq (talk): Well, it is actually relevant, as the notability limit set for this software must be applied to all articles about software. If the decision in this discussion becomes Delete we know that the notability limit for articles about software is set above the notability of Twistedbrush, if the decision becomes Keep we know that the limit is set below the notability of Twistedbrush. To be consequent we must apply the same rules to all articles about software. And if wikipedia has already set a limit for notability through earlier AfD's about software, that level of notability has to be applied to the article about Twistedbrush.


 * Are there any earlier AfD's about the notability of software which can serve as precedence for this case? Or is this the first case, which will serve as precedence for all following cases? Roger491127 (talk) 02:05, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Many other pieces of software have been discussed at AfD, but there is no precedence set by them. Some of them get deleted, some get redirected, some get kept. It goes by the consensus. The results of this AfD does not set a precedence.
 * As to other articles about software, some of them may not meet the criteria for inclusion - in which case someone can nominate them for deletion. But, the results of this AfD do not automatically mean that other articles should be deleted or should be kept. Firstly, they may be better sourced; secondly, they may be source-able even if they are not currently adequately sourced. Each AfD is treated in isolation - you can't say "This should be kept because there are other similar articles", or "If this is deleted, so should lots of other articles". OK, I understand that you are protective of this article - but that does not mean it should be kept, or (conversely) that other articles should be deleted. As I said on my talk page, there are a few articles which I hope to look at when I get a chance, and if necessary to nominate for deletion. But those articles have no bearing on this discussion. This software does not meet the criteria for inclusion from what I can see, and so I support its deletion. And that's not because I'm a deletionist... if you look at my AfD record, you will see that sometimes I suggest deletion, sometimes keeping, sometimes merging or redirection. Each case is individual. If you look at my record, you will see that I am happy to change my viewpoint if the arguments for the other side are persuasive... in this case, the arguments for keeping this article have not been persuasive to me.  Phantom Steve / talk &#124; contribs \ 04:17, 11 July 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.