Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ViewPoint 3D


 * 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. North America1000 11:09, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

ViewPoint 3D

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Delete: Non-notable software. Comment: Main contributor appears to have COI https://www.linkedin.com/pub/robin-colclough/38/b8/304 SageGreenRider (talk) 23:05, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Although I am involved in the ViewPoint-3D project, that does not mean that the page is not useful to people searching for information on 3D content software, especially as it is the only software currently driving glasses-free 3D screen instantly, in real-time, and with live data and video feed. Clearly the software is notable, there is no "PowerPoint-3D" or "Photoshop-3D", there is no software that allows users to create data-rich 3D animations and presentations with live streaming HD and 4K video, or 3D that is updated by RSS or data feeds, none. If anyone disagrees please post the name of such software, because not Aurora, HTML5 (which is an API and not a product), nor Google Sketchup, or Maya, 3D Studio Max, 3D Afterworks, etc., are able to do what ViewPoint-3D is designed to to: instant HD 3D rendering with live-data updated content.

Why would anyone want to remove the page, its not offensive, the information is factual, the company even offers completely free software to educational users of any size as long as they are non-profit. Educators can use the software to develop interactive content with simple or very complex models, as large as software from companies such as Virtualia that costs thousands of dollars. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RobinColclough (talk • contribs) 06:12, 22 April 2015 (UTC)


 * As I said at the beginning, the article should be deleted because the topic is not notable. I suggest you read WP:GNG, WP:COMPANY, and WP:NOT SageGreenRider (talk) 11:37, 22 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment. The article creator having a COI isn't necessarily grounds for the article's deletion (the article does appear to have a promotional tone, but that isn't grounds for deletion either).  Erpert  blah, blah, blah... 06:54, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Agreed. However, COI editors are generally poor judges of notability, and indeed I believe this is the case here, so I mentioned it. SageGreenRider (talk) 11:36, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I added "Delete" and "Comment" to my initial line to clarify which part was the reason for deletion, and which part was an observation. hth SageGreenRider (talk) 12:00, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:30, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:30, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

If anyone can provide any proof that there is another 3D software that can provide those facilities, without any scripting or programming, I'd understand there being such interest to delete the page. In addition, this is currently the only software that can render HD (up to 4K) video in real-time within the 3D scene. This is useful because it allows, for example, a youtuber to create a live video cast of themselves green-screened into an HD video and broadcast it immediately, or simply allow an information or digital signage screen to show content with current TV and live video camera feed.
 * Delete. This article is unsourced, except to its own website; even the review cited is on its own website. The tone is heavily promotional, and without any external references it is nothing more than an advertisement. ScrapIronIV (talk) 20:18, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment As a compromise, I'm happy for the article to be moved into draft space or the primary contributor's sandbox until such time (if any) that the company/product achieves notability per policy. At such time, submission via WP:AFC would help overcome the COI issue. hth SageGreenRider (talk) 16:40, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment Actually, this should probably be Speedy Deleted per WP:G11 due to its obviously promotional slant. There is no reason why it can't be rebuilt with good sources if they exist. Anyone could put it in their own sandbox if they wanted. But, even with a change in tone and direct links solely to the publisher's page removed, it still would not meet notability guidelines. ScrapIronIV (talk) 17:22, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment I'd like to try to defend the page, if that's okay, and I apologise up-front for any over enthusiasm. Can I ask, is it important that users of Wikipedia have a detailed source of reference of new technologies, even if they are not in widespread use?  Because if it is then the page should not be deleted or relegated to the soap box, as it is the only computer graphics software that provides 3D content generation with live-data, where external data can change the 3D scene display in real-time without human re-editing. This is very useful for information display purposes, because users can make, amongst many things, a 3D weather fly-through that auto-updates as new RSS weather data arrives, or a flooding mimic diagram in 3D showing river levels as they rise and fall.

On top of these unique features, the software, which is an ongoing development project, is currently, the only that can render directly live 3D animated content to glasses-free monitors, and on low-cost computers.

Current approaches use post processing of existing canned 3D content to produce 2D+Depth or Autostereoscopic interleaved output.

To the best of my knowledge, this software is unique, neither Intel, Microsoft or specialists like Scala or Broadcom have this capability, and some of the 3D glasses-free manufacturers have even threatened legal action as it threatens their control of the content market.

ViewPoint3D is a small project that has been reported by the industry press (links available on the viewpoint-3d.com site under News), however it doesn't have the economic power to compete in what has become a very controlled advertising market, even press releases don't get published without paying for month of advertising up-front, and if all channels are blocked the public won't be able to find out that 3D content doesn't have to cost them $30/second, which is the average rate.

Intel was recently fined heavily for illegal practices, including paying PC manufacturers not to use competitors chips Intel loses appeal of 14B USD European Union Fine, and so any new technology faces the risk of being squashed if not bought out.

People looking for 3D solutions have found us because of the Wiki page, some have been educational users, to which the software is available completely free, others commercial.

I can't say if this project will become globally notable, but deleting the page or dumping it in the sand box will only be useful to commercial companies selling more costly solutions; I mean its not like so many complex software projects are swapping wikipedia's database. Apologies if I've gone on a bit, but I believe in this project beyond pure commercial interest, and hope that the project is given a chance. Thanks RobinColclough (talk) 19:33, 25 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia is not a vehicle to right the world's wrongs. We are tertiary followers. We write about what secondary sources (e.g. journalists in newspapers) have written about primary topics (e.g. events, ideas, companies, products,...). This debate is about a single issue: notability. It's a waste of everyone's time to for you to talk about other topics like the commercial practices of Intel et al. Sorry to be terse. On the positive side, I see you have added some independent sources in the past few days. That is helpful. I'm pinging people who looked at it before to look at it again:, , what do you think? Keep and multi-tag for COI, questionable notability, promotional language? Re-list for more inputs? I'm not sure. SageGreenRider (talk) 12:41, 27 April 2015 (UTC)


 * As mentioned previously, this qualifies for a Speedy Delete per WP:G11 promotional content. The sooner it is gone, the better. We are not an advertising platform, nor are we a place to campaign for "new ideas" in the marketplace. We are supposed to be an encyclopedia... Would you find this sort of advertisement in Britannica? ScrapIronIV (talk) 13:03, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I tend to agree but I'm torn between avoiding biting the newcomers with a speedy and a fear that, while acting in good faith, is not here to build an encyclopaedia. SageGreenRider (talk) 13:41, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't believe that adhering to policy is a case of biting a newcomer, so long as appropriate explanations are made. Besides, they have been here since 2011. As our policy has been explained, it should not be an issue for an uninvolved editor. Unfortunately, it appears that the article creator is not an uninvolved Wikipedia editor, but an outsider promoting multiple properties for personal benefit. I appreciate your patience, but some things just need to be deleted. ScrapIronIV (talk) 14:54, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached. Relisting comment: Kindly help! SageGreenRider (talk) 14:06, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SageGreenRider (talk) 14:06, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Weak keep. I was neutral at first, but thanks to the independent sources added, it sounds like this subject deserves a chance. And although it's true that the tone is still rather promotional, it isn't blatantly promotional (imo), so a speedy wouldn't apply (a rewrite would, however&mdash;and remember, AfD is not cleanup).  Erpert  blah, blah, blah... 22:35, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete References added after AfD are 2012 press-releases, which means that the software didn't generate enogh buzz yet, and it is not wikipedia's job to do it for them. Staszek Lem (talk) 23:28, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
 * The software is still in development, with press releases in the pipeline. The release due next month will offer Google Sketchup users instant rendering of models that currently take hours to render. Its a lot of work, its taken 5-years so far, but if you really all think its just rubbish, just delete it and get it over with, as it does the project more harm than good sticking the "Questional content" banner on the top of it. RobinColclough (talk) 08:33, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
 * You will also find references and images produced by ViewPoint-3D on Autostereoscopy and 2D-plus-depth, so you can delete all that too if you wish. RobinColclough (talk) 08:37, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Robin, no-one said it's "just rubbish." The criterion for inclusion is that multiple, independent reliable sources have written substantially on the topic. It so happens that this is not the case (yet) for your project. That's all. If you think your project has become notable in future, you can re-submit to Articles for Creation at such time. SageGreenRider (talk) 12:02, 28 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Speedy delete per WP:ADMASQ - nothing more than an advert in an article's clothing. ukexpat (talk) 20:39, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete The software simply isn't notable as Wikipedia defines that term, because it has not received significant coverage in reliable, independent sources. It is that simple, and all the lengthy protestations by the article's creator (who has a conflict of interest) completely fail to address the core policy issue and must therefore be disregarded. This is an encyclopedia consisting of neutral articles about notable topics. It is not an advertising platform for promoting new non-notable software. If the software receives the required significant coverage, the article can be recreated at that time. Cullen328  Let's discuss it  01:54, 29 April 2015 (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.