Wikipedia:Featured article review/Scene7/archive1

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was delisted by Casliber via FACBot (talk) 2:42, 25 October 2018 (UTC) [1].

Scene7

Notified: Gary, Chisme, Dank, WikiProject Computing, WikiProject Software

Review section

I am nominating this featured article for review because, after much discussion across the years, it has been pared down (changing significantly the content that was once promoted to featurement) and concerns of WP:NPOV have been raised. Leefeni de Karik (talk) 04:16, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Scene7 was swallowed by Adobe in 2007, eleven years ago. It has not been heard from since. The article as it stands now IMHO is about right considering the import and significance of the company. If anybody can fill out what happened in the last eleven years, I'm in favor of rewriting the article. But otherwise there is no point in beating a dead horse. Chisme (talk) 04:27, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I think that the rampant changing of the article is a point worth addressing, but I'm not sure if FAR is the right venue for it. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 19:12, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Interesting history here, as Chisme removed quite a bit of content in 2015 amidst requests for restraint from Bencherlite, Mike Christie, and DrKay. The principal reasons given were that it was "too long", had "too much detail" or "fluff" and that it was longer than Adobe Systems. Personally I'm not persuaded that these reasons are valid or that any meaningful examples were given. Nevertheless, the changes were made, and many months later Leefeni de Karik nominated it for FAR without further notice or discussion. As far as I'm concerned, the article no longer meets 1b, and should be reverted to its pre-reduction state and this nomination closed. --Laser brain (talk) 10:45, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the ping. I think I lost this from my watchlist in a general purge a while ago. Looking at the talk page I see no evidence that those objecting to the cuts, including myself, ever reached a consensus that Chisme was correct. I've reverted it to just before the cuts, and I think it should stay there until a talk page consensus is reached on what to do next. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:54, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously at 20,000 words the article is bloated and too long. See article size. I'm a bit miffed that people who have only a passing interest in this article feel free to reverse my edits. I did consider them carefully and there is a consensus on the Talk page that the article is too long. The objections are about where, not whether, to start cutting. I note the article has nothing to say about Scene7's activity in the past ten years. Twenty thousand words on Scene7's first ten years and nothing on its second ten? That ought to tell you how ill-conceived this article is. Rather than making wholesale pooh-pooh objections I'd appreciate it if editors besides me made attempts to improve this article. Respectfully, Chisme (talk) 19:52, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It's 1879 words. DrKay (talk) 21:08, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Move to FARC. With no updates for the last 10 years and no appetite for expansion, the article is not comprehensive because it's missing half its history. DrKay (talk) 21:08, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Given that it was acquired in 2007, the company itself presumably can't have any further history. The brand still exists within Adobe, though it's apparently going away -- see this page, which says "Adobe Dynamic media classic (formerly Scene7)". Should the article continue with the story of the brand within Adobe? Or would that more naturally be part of the article on Adobe? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:54, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The article is written in the present tense and doesn't explain what happened after the acquisition. If it is a subsidiary, then it still exists. If it was merged entirely, then it doesn't and the article should reflect that. DrKay (talk) 16:31, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that's fair. I don't agree with Chisme that there was consensus on the talk page for cuts, but the article does need to be kept up to date. The problem is that the article is too short, not too long -- though correcting the problem might require only a few sentences, depending on what actually happened after the acquisition. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:11, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
We should still move to FARC to keep the process going, but I'm willing to look up some source and get the article up to date. --Laser brain (talk) 13:43, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Remove this article? Maybe our discussion should be about removing this article. Here is a list of companies that Adobe, Inc. acquired. Of the 46 companies on the list, 19 have Wikipedia articles. What makes Scene7 remarkable enough to be among the 19? What makes Scene7 remarkable enough to be in an encyclopedia? I'm at a loss to know. Scene7 is remarkable only because -- inexplicably, mysteriously -- it was chosen once upon a time as Wikipedia's featured article of the day. Take away that distinction, judge Scene7 on its own merits, and Scene7 doesn't belong. The encyclopedia that everyone can edit is not meant to be a company directory, notwithstanding efforts by PR agents and in-house publicists. Chisme (talk) 18:41, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That's not a decision we can make here; you'd have to take this to AfD if you think that's the right way to go. I doubt it would be deleted -- it seems to pass the GNG. I agree that the fact it was once the featured article of the day is not relevant; if it deserves to be deleted then it should go. If you do nominate it, this FAR can stay on hold until that decision is made. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 20:57, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

FARC section

Issues raised in the review section include currency and comprehensiveness. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:09, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delist. Out-of-date, failing criterion 1b: e.g. the article ends on an announcement from 10 years ago that the company is going to be expanded. DrKay (talk) 14:23, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delist per DrKay. I've put an update tag on the article. 344917661X (talk) 23:17, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Closing note: This removal candidate has been delisted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please leave the {{featured article review}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:42, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.