Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Amiga Reflections

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. Article seems to have undergone significant sourcing improvements since nomination. Regards, Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 03:54, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Amiga Reflections

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

Non notable software DimaG (talk) 22:01, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- --Rrburke^ekrubrR 22:19, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. The books (in German) were written by the software's author, but according to Amazon were published by Pearson Education Germany [1]. Well, they were published by Markt&Technik which is part of Pearson nowadays; not sure how it was back then. But it's a hardcover book: [2]. Books by others also seem to exist review of one in Amiga Joker (1995). Pcap ping 14:33, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 05:03, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no evidence that this was notable software. The fact that the guy who made it also wrote about it isn't exactly a shocker. Doesn't appear to meet any of the general criteria for which we'd normally keep a software product (influential, major firsts, bestselling, etc) Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:10, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - How many Amiga graphic software article there is on Wikipedia? Would be interesting to have an article on 3D modeling on Amiga which would contain this material. As it stand now, I don't think a stand alone article on this particular software is OK. -RobertMel (talk) 16:01, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I noticed 3D_computer_graphics_software, FWIW. Jodi.a.schneider (talk) 00:45, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - 1989 seems early in the world of 3D graphics programming. What was the first 3D software package? It appears to be contemporaneous with current software that started around 1989/1990 on Amiga: LightWave 3D. Given the topic--Amiga, 1989--I think offline research or more background in the area would be needed to support notability or non-notability claims. Jodi.a.schneider (talk) 00:45, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I found a paper from a conference of The International Society for Optical Engineering evaluating this software to teach opthamology/surgery. The software changed names; it became Monzoom, and I've added further information about that (Amiga and PC) software. The references could use further work (please give that a try if you can), and many of the current sources are in German. To me, the 10-year history of this software and its use (see reviews/tutorials/plugins now listed) establish its notability. Jodi.a.schneider (talk) 06:14, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There really seem to be a problem in establishing notability for softwares which appears not to be restricted to free softwares (but in particular to free softwares). In the case of aging ones, they have been replaced by better ones and no one really talk about outdated ones. I don't know where I stand on this issue. -RobertMel (talk) 14:44, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - this was a lower-cost alternative to Imagine and Turbo Silver and relatively popular in Germany at the time. V2.0 was not sold as a book but in a normal shrink-wrap box, so I don't see why there shouldn't be an article on it. Just because Dima doesn't know Reflections, that doesn't mean it wasn't used by a whole lot of people... Morn (talk) 17:27, 3 March 2010 (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.