Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/K-3D

This discussion was subject to a deletion review on 2018 January 13.
For an explanation of the process, see Wikipedia:Deletion review.

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. Bart 123 has a WP:COI and everybody else advocates deletion. Sandstein 22:43, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

K-3D

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

Non-notable computer program. Codename Lisa (talk) 09:17, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! ^{Babymissfortune} 09:42, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I'm not sure what the criterion for non-notable is, but the binaries were downloaded 24000 times in 2017. K-3D is currently in maintenance-only mode and maintained mostly by me. Also, Dsmatthews has no conflict of interest editing this page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bart 123 (talk • contribs) 11:46, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion about the COI tag; unrelated to the AfD nomination

Hi. I don't remember having mentioned anything about Dsmatthews being connected, neither here nor anywhere else in English Wikipedia. So, what happened that you tried to defend against a charge that is not even brought up? Are you his sock? —Codename Lisa (talk) 12:08, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

See here Bart 123 (talk) 17:52, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It has no mention of Dsmatthews whatsoever. —Codename Lisa (talk) 19:12, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

To whom does the COI refer then? I suppose it can be removed? —Bart 123 (talk) 20:09, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You are dodging the question. As a single-purpose account, you'd better show some transparency. —Codename Lisa (talk) 06:37, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I am coming around to the idea that your mention of Dsmatthews was a totally benign one. You just didn't know better; let's just say that he did stuff that a couple of administators didn't approve of. Alright. I am dropping this case. Just please, as much as possible, comment on the nomination, not on contributors. I am sorry if things got unpleasant. —Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 13:44, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I propose that the below undo action be activated as no further information to justify the COI claim has been provide despite requests directed at it's author. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=K-3D&action=edit&undoafter=818744946&undo=818745217 Dsmatthews (talk) 07:19, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, hello. Maybe I must refresh your memory: In the edit summary of revision 810005717, you wrote: "I am a subject expert (developer of said software, check the credits in it!)". Oh, and please stick to the etiquette, would you? —Codename Lisa (talk) 07:27, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

OK got what we needed, note the time stamp.
I reiterate the proposal to remove COI claim as it is still unproven and no direct rebuttal was offered, even how it could work is unproven as subject is not a commercial product. Dsmatthews (talk) 07:52, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Expanding on my previous comment, I will concede I have a lot to learn about Wiki editing, so before making some points against the proposal for deletion, let me clarify some things:

I am not a sock, but Dsmatthews did draw my attention to this AFD request. In the interest of full disclosure, the discussion is here. From reading up on the Wikipedia guidelines I see now that this qualifies as "meatpuppetry", but that was not my intention.
This is not a single-purpose account, I created it when I saw broken links in the totally unrelated Chicken Gun page, two years ago.
Regarding the mailing list discussion cited above, I am in no position to judge so I give the legitimacy of this AFD request the benefit of the doubt and will support my argument below.

So now for the actual arguments:

K-3D is included in most major distributions:

Download numbers were cited before
Inspired by other deletion discussions, I found a book link: there is a book on 3D printing mentioning it.
another, less notable book
It is mentioned on sculpteo

Bart 123 (talk) 13:45, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Bart 123. For upholding the etiquette, your valuable research in about notablility and for the transparency. I hope there is no hard feeling between us. —Codename Lisa (talk) 14:30, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Not standing out from the rest WP:COOKIE--Safe My Edit (talk) 17:35, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

K-3D is not run-of-the-mill in the sense that the pipeline mentioned in the article still works in a quite unique way. At the height of its popularity, it was considered to be a potential competitor for Blender, mainly due to the modular nature. It is also one of the few open-source modellers that offer proper Renderman integration. —Bart 123 (talk) 18:20, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - a simple Google search turns up almost no sources to demonstrate notability, besides similarly worded promotional/download sites. I found two books with brief descriptions but that's it.[[1]] [[2]] Fails WP:GNG. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 19:56, 12 January 2018 (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.