Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/OpenFX (API)

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. Nakon 01:26, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

OpenFX (API)[edit]

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

This article does not establish its notability through providing significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject itself. (See WP:GNG) Seems to be advertisement for a minor project on SourceForge. Codename Lisa (talk) 02:53, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:59, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:59, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support. I'm not finding much in the way of reliable secondary sources on the web. wia (talk) 12:02, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I went looking for sources when this article was posted a month ago, and I didn't find any. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 21:01, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I was able to find a reasonable number of mentions in reliable third-party sources. (For example, [1] [2]) This is a software standard, developed by a non-profit industry organization, and used in a number of major products. "The Open Effects Association (OFX), a non-profit organization, develops and promotes open standards across the visual effects community. The founding members come from Assimilate, Autodesk, Digieffects, FilmLight, The Foundry, Genarts and RE:Vision FX. These are companies which have helped artists create ground-breaking VFX shots on nearly every blockbuster movie. The Association’s initial focus is to improve the OpenFX image processing plug-in standard. This goal of this standard is to reduce development effort and support needed for plug-ins across different compositing and editing host platforms." [3] Though it's notable, it's not likely to get a *lot* of news coverage. The article stub needs to be improved. Cinteotl (talk) 08:33, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Cinteotl. Two of your three links are primary sources. One of them is the official website. Notability requires significant coverage in secondary sources. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 17:57, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think the link to the official website is the only primary. But there is also [4] [5] [6] [7]. Overall, I think press coverage is weak. But, because the OpenFX API is just "plumbing," I don't expect a lot of coverage other than product notices saying "it's got OpenFX plug-in support." Cinteotl (talk) 03:24, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"Overall, I think press coverage is weak. And that means notability test has failed. WP:GNG specifically requires the opposite of weak; it says significant coverage in reliable secondary sources. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 10:05, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
What you just did above is called Bombardment in Wikipedia. It is the act of inserting several sources that only briefly mention the subject instead of covering it. The book source is good. But the rest are about Sony Vegas Pro, DaVinci Resolve 11.1 and GenArts. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 10:10, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ymblanter (talk) 08:20, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per new sources found by Cinteotl, including a book chapter with a lot of detail. Looks like users and developers in this area will need to know what it means, potentially like OpenGL. – Margin1522 (talk) 09:43, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nakon 02:57, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep in addition to the book chapter above, there is a Toolfarm article and a section of a Da Vinci tutorial on lynda.com. The other more brief mentions noted above contribute to notability, especially Digital Producer, a more general publication. A standard adopted by an industry consortium, adopted by major editing programs like DaVinci, and discussed in depth in RS like a book chapter, the Toolfarm article, and a section in a Lynda.com tutorial is sufficient notability for me. --Mark viking (talk) 20:03, 10 April 2015 (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.