- 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 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
- (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]
-
-
-
-
- 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:
- 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]
- 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]
- 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.