Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Modo (software)

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. henrik•talk 00:48, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Modo (software)

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

The subject of the article lacks significant coverage in reliable third party sources and fails the notability guidelines. Alpha_Quadrant ^(talk) 20:28, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Lot of news coverage to sort through. Tagging this for help finding them. Dream Focus 22:01, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Dream Focus 22:01, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep [1] Many sources cover the software and the company. Dream Focus 16:32, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 21:12, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 21:12, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment A discussion closely related to this one is going on here.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 08:54, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Topic has received significant coverage in trustworthy, reliable sources with editorial integrity:

Cohen, Peter (June 10, 2005). "Luxology modo ready for Intel switch". Macworld.com. Retrieved February 22, 2012. {{cite web}}: External link in |publisher= (help)
Cohen, Peter (October 8, 2007). "Luxology licenses Pixar graphics tech". Macworld.com. Retrieved February 22, 2012. {{cite web}}: External link in |publisher= (help)
Sheridan Perry, Todd (August 11, 2008). "Luxology's Modo 302". Animation Magazine. Retrieved February 22, 2012. {{cite web}}: External link in |publisher= (help)

—Northamerica1000^(talk) 19:34, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I know almost nothing about this field (computer animation) but even hitting google books for a couple of minutes indicates that this is a significant company & product. [2] [3] [4] [5] What we lack here are not sources but some editor(s) to improve the article(s). ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 12:31, 24 February 2012 (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.