Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Meshroom

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 Draftify.
Interpreted consensus:

It is not ready for mainspace
It may or may not be notable. (non-admin closure) – AssumeGoodWraith (talk | contribs) 05:38, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Meshroom

[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)

Thought this felt a bit WP:PROMO, but the lack of sources doesn't help. When I did a google search I see a documentation and downloads for it. I don't see reviews or how this passes basic WP:GNG. Govvy (talk) 14:37, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Computing and Software. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:42, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep

It was never my intention to fully write this article. I don't know enough about the program(!), but felt it should be included here. Here are some links that might help with its inclusion (from here):

It is the subject of instruction at multiple grade schools, high schools, universities or post-graduate programs. This criterion does not apply to software merely used in instruction.

e.g.

- Virginia Tech

- University of Oxford

- maastricht university suggests it is part of an MA course

- University of Maryland (not sure what purpose this blog indicates)

- University of Nottingham (ditto)

It is the subject of multiple printed third-party manuals, instruction books, or reliable reviews, written by independent authors and published by independent publishers.

e.g.

- Comparative Analysis of Open-Source and Commercial Photogrammetry Software for Cultural Heritage conference paper

- University of Queensland (review/comparison)

used for making music videos

- Everything Everything - In Birdsong

I can do some more digging if needed

Pluke (talk) 15:19, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

- What the article needs is improvement, not more digging. Independent sources, a neutral style and tone is necessary. The Banner talk 10:28, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  Completely agree, but I think we need to dismiss the AfD before we spend too much effort on this. The above list should serve as a good starting point to improve things. Pluke (talk) 11:25, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  Not really. You made a low quality article as a way to deflect this discussion. Now it is up to you to bring the article up to standard before an admin comes with the decision. The Banner talk 11:47, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  I'm not sure that's how things work around here. I've not done much serious editing for a very long time, but it used to be that articles can be created as stubs for other people to improve on. If this has changed, please point me to the policy. I'm not trying to deflect the discussion, I asked you for the policy you were referring to for inclusion on the list you are maintaining, you appear to have your own criteria, which I'm not wanting to get into a huge argument about as you're clearly doing a good job of maintaining the list. I met your criteria, created a stub, have now pulled together a load of potential sources to improve the article. As I noted in the other discussion the question here was about he notability of the software product, as evidenced by this AfD, not about it having a page. There is no obligation for me to do anything, this site generally runs on good will, I hope to come back to this when I have a little more time. Pluke (talk) 13:43, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  Throw something over the fence and others can do the work??? But in the present state, the article will most likely not survive. The Banner talk 16:29, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  I don't have time right now to convert the multiple sources I have provided above into a full article. Wiki writing, for me at least, is an iterative process, and if you note what I've said, I'm intending on working on this article, just not now. If you think that the article should be deleted, please make the case here, this is what this page is for. I believe that I've provided enough evidence for this article to survive as a stub, which will hopefully be worked on by me and others. Pluke (talk) 16:55, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I commend Pluke's effort, to which I will add [1] as evidence that databases of scientific papers should be searched before the article can be deleted. I will note that the Notability (software) essay linked is not official policy. Despite this, and the article's current lacking state, I believe it can be improved to a suitably encyclopedic state and has a sufficient claim to notability, so deletion is not the solution. Toadspike (talk) 21:01, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: further discussion on available sourcing will help determine whether this has viability as an article.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 01:14, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify to allow Pluke and others the time to work on it. It's not in shape for mainspace right now, but believe it could be brought into compliance with more time than an AfD provides. Star Mississippi 01:15, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify per Star Mississippi. Heartmusic678 (talk) 10:46, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:03, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non-notable would be my vote, but I have no problem with Draftify - we can afford the electrons. Springnuts (talk) 22:08, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

See the more complete draft article here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:AliceVision_Meshroom

As well as articles in other languages: https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/AliceVision_Meshroom, https://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/AliceVision_Meshroom — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.198.18.33 (talk) 07:51, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Last relist
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – AssumeGoodWraith (talk | contribs) 23:23, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (as a redirect)- there is a much better version of this topic linked above and here. The Meshroom page will then redirect to the more complete page. Pluke (talk) 21:55, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You mean the four times rejected draft?? The Banner talk 22:07, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

it's due another review as it has had several updates since the last one, from what I can see. Rather than drag on this AfD, maybe efforts should be put into reviewing the draft article? Pluke (talk) 22:23, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Mainspace redirect to a draft? That won’t work. – AssumeGoodWraith (talk | contribs) 23:55, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I've used this software before (and it works well). However, during this time I would have expected the page to continue to expand in the past 30 days. However, I would see Draft:AliceVision Meshroom being a replacement, as it's been translated from the italian/french versions. SWinxy (talk) 23:10, 30 March 2022 (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.