Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/OpenCL 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. OlavN's opinion is not taken into account as it does not address the problems identified with this article in terms of Wikipedia's guidelines and policies. Sandstein 09:14, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OpenCL Studio

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable. The only review on the article [1] is very flimsy, and a search turned up press releases and forum/blog posts alone - frankie (talk) 18:08, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. — I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} 19:05, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. — I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} 19:05, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep WP would be a useless software selection guide if a (clearly powerful) program like this were removed. OlavN (talk) 07:46, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Except that WP is not a software selection guide, it is an encyclopedia. The matter is not whether the program is useful or powerful, but whether it is notable - frankie (talk) 15:43, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: article has multiple verifiable sources at the bottom which discuss the software. 137.122.32.18 (talk) 14:06, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

From the links on the article, #1 and #2 are actually the same, but I guess that #1 was supposed to be this, which is a listing for a 90 minutes seminar by NVIDIA about this software. #2 simply lists it at the Khronos website as a utility for OpenCL and gives a link to the developer's site. #3 is a video stream; it didn't work for me but given the title I'll assume that it is a recording of the seminar from #1. Finally, #4 is an actual review, although not very thorough - frankie (talk) 22:10, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tone 17:43, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The relevant guideline is Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies). This guideline covers companies and their products. It requires products to be the subject of significant coverage in secondary sources. Such sources must be reliable, and independent of the subject. The sources provided so far appear to be internal company generated sources, or press releases or similar. There are only 350 hits on Google for "OpenCL Studio". That is a very small number. This appears to be a young product ... perhaps in a few years it will have enough secondary sources to deserve its own article. On a related note: the parent company, Geist3D has a WP article (which also has a "dubious notability" tag). The material in this OpenCL article, if deleted, can and should be moved into the Geist3D article. --Noleander (talk) 23:04, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that if text from is article is copied to another article then the article cannot be deleted as the edit history which is the attribution under the Creative Commons license will need to be preserved. Edgepedia (talk) 20:56, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No evidence it passes WP:GNG. FuFoFuEd (talk) 03:42, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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.