Talk:Clesh

This article was previously nominated for deletion. The result of the discussion was keep.

This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Film: Filmmaking This article is within the scope of WikiProject Film. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the guidelines.FilmWikipedia:WikiProject FilmTemplate:WikiProject Filmfilm articles This article is supported by the Filmmaking task force. Computing: Software This article is within the scope of WikiProject Computing, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of computers, computing, and information technology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ComputingWikipedia:WikiProject ComputingTemplate:WikiProject ComputingComputing articles ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject Software.

This article must be listed in wikipedia as it was mentioned for months already in the article list of video editing software --Alcid (talk) 18:56, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As with any article it's best to establish notability, preferably with an outside reference.Rob Banzai (talk) 19:15, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Added three notable references to keep this article --Alcid (talk) 19:56, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Clesh is notable as it was the first fully interactive consumer web-based editing package ever

--Alcid (talk) 12:57, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm mostly a wikipedia inclussionist, meaning I tend to lean to the side of keeping articles rather than deleting them, and most importantly not just deleting articles if they can be salvaged! I'm not saying that that is what's happening here, but it happens darn often, where this article may well be notable, there may be quite a few references out there, it may well meet the notability guidelines of its category (if applicable), or its unverified claims may have some sources out there -- but because nobody takes the time to fetch such information (especially deletionist admins who often have the tools, knowledge, ability and resources to find such information - but would far prefer to have less articles on Wikipedia). The bottom line is this: go out there, find the references. If it was on TV program or radio program - there's citation templates for those. Mentioned in a magazine or newspaper? There's templates. Published in a book? Template! And of course, published in the news somewhere on the net - find it! Take the time, or admit that the article simply doesn't meet notability yet. Rfwoolf (talk) 16:24, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Rfwoolf - it's interesting what one can find when one starts looking. mk (talk) 21:07, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've re-hashed the intro to reflect mobile / tablet usage but also to make it read less like an advert to address concerns raised. If anyone has any further input or ideas please discuss. Regards, mk (talk) 13:01, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My view is the history page needs to be slimmed down, the platform is being updated all the time which is neither feasible to track within the article (it would render it unreadable) nor is this necessary (the authors of the platform maintain this same information on an external website where interested parties can be referred to) mk (talk) 13:04, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've updated the other sections now too (features / technology / user interface), and I will have a go at the history section soon. Any feedback welcome. I will set about removing some of the 'alerts' on the page header once I'm done as I believe my changes have addressed some of these issues. mk (talk) 10:50, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Have done a wholesale review of the article, cited references, removed unreliable links, removed any language that might be considered promotional. The software is the only frame accurate cloud based platform targeted at consumers - it is notable for this reason. Welcome further editors to review the changes made. mk (talk) 22:08, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]