Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/3D-Analyze

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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 Delete. Cbrown1023 01:52, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 3D-Analyze

3D-Analyze (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Original reason was no notability within WP:SOFTWARE. However, I found a third-party user guide at http://www.3dfxzone.it/dir/articles/template.php?id=5, implying some notability (even if shaky). --Sigma 7 17:35, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Comment: I'm not sure I selected the right category. If possible, can you change it? --Sigma 7 17:37, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, —Doug Bell talk 00:18, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Delete Fails WP:SOFTWARE. Original Research. 84,900 google hits. Maybe vanity Conflict of interest--M8v2 01:13, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. I've used this program in the past and it is definitely a unique piece of software. Considering its widespread use, from positive (allowing modern games to be played on older hardware) to very negative (cheating at 3DMark), it should not be difficult to find sources covering this piece of software to satisfy WP:V. — Dark Shikari talk/contribs
  • Keep Seems all right to me (Liveforever22 02:50, 15 December 2006 (UTC))
  • Delete or clean up. Seems to have POV and remotely possible COI issues. --Dennisthe2 02:54, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep and expand as per User:Dark Shikari--C.lettinga 06:27, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Fails any reasonable interpretation of notability for software, including WP:SOFTWARE. Most of the "keep" reasons given here have nothing to do with why we keep or delete articles. Mus Musculus 15:37, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment. About half of the keep reasons here refer to mine or are mine, which bases its reasoning off WP:V, which is the primary reason for keeping or deleting an article: verifiability. Of course, you could prove me wrong by demonstrating there are no/almost no verifiable sources, in which case I would change my vote to delete. — Dark Shikari talk/contribs 19:44, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete unless the WP:V standard can be met. Currently it isn't. --SECurtisTX 19:58, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. WP:V is met with the link that I originally reported on, and just included within the page, and in my opinion, there may have been other pages as well. WP:NOTE may be an issue, since there is only that single guide available. In my opinion, the product does have notability, as a third party did write an article about it - if it isn't notable enough, then you may want to create a redirect to something concerning TnL emulation or otherwise merge the information into the List_of_computer_games_that_require_pixel_shaders. --Sigma 7 07:22, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete unless sourced. Quick googling doesn't come up with anything but forums and fan sites. It did help me find it though. =/ Kotepho 02:11, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as non-notable, no substantial coverage by multiple reliable sources. Sandstein 06:22, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
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.