Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Final Cut Server

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. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 17:01, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Final Cut Server

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

I could not find any relevant non-primary sources on this topic that are not from Macworld, and if I used the Macworld sources, the page will rely entirely on a single source. Equal width (C) 10:26, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 12:04, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep ~~Comment~~. From what I can tell, the subject here ~~could very well~~ meets WP:NSOFTWARE. Certainly the nominator's suggestion, that the "only relevant non-primary sources are from Macworld", doesn't hold water. As I was very quickly and easily able to find and add multiple sources, including from Engadget, Computerworld and AppleInsider. If this article is not retained as a standalone title, and is considered (for example) for merge with Final Cut Studio or similar, it should not be for the suggested "no secondary refs other than MacWorld" reasons - as that rationale doesn't stack up. Guliolopez (talk) 01:39, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
OK, so why didn’t you vote Keep with this text? Equal width (C) 04:04, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Because (1) AFD is expressly not a "vote" as you imply. It is a discussion. (2) I have contributed my opinion to that discussion (that the subject could well be notable). And (3) I do not like to make snap contributions without considering the sources and the policies (which I have/hadn't fully done when I added my thoughts above - to the extent that I wasn't yet ready to firmly advocate for a "keep". I may yet. But that's not up to you). Please try not to confuse Wikipedia with a battleground or debate club. With "opposing" sides. Decision making (including in AfD discussions) is based on discussion and consensus building. Thanks. Guliolopez (talk) 12:55, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Based on additional sourcing/input from several editors (updated since my note above), it is clear(er) to me that this title should be kept as a standalone article. Rather than, say, merged to one of the related Final Cut Studio articles. Certainly I do not see or support a case for outright deletion (by any stretch of the imagination, sources or related policies). I have therefore updated my earlier note to clarify my recommendation. Guliolopez (talk) 09:15, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Yet another frivolous AfD from this new user. Even if that lazy first glance was correct, deletion is obviously not a valid course of action instead of redirect to Final Cut Pro. However, Guliolopez's easily found and widespread sourcing hasn't even yet reached back to the product's original form prior to Apple. — Smuckola (talk) 04:51, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
An Oppose vote in an AfD? That's invalid! Please change your vote to Keep or Delete. Also stop calling me new without thinking about whether I consider myself new or not. Equal width (C) 06:08, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and snow close. Plenty of significant coverage to be found in book and magazine sources, as well as the web sources found and cited recently. DigitalIceAge (talk) 04:59, 22 November 2023 (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.