Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tierazon

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. kur ykh 23:00, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tierazon

Non-notable software. Minor lulz for the article creator adding a "this article may not meet the general notability guideline" tag. Ironholds (talk) 05:47, 2 November 2008 (UTC) Ironholds (talk) 05:47, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This article has been suggested for deletion due to being about "non-notable software". Currently, there are articles about Sterling, Fractint, Apophysis and Fractint. According to the most authoritative fractal census I have seen, Tierazon is the 4th most popular fractal generating program, more popular than Apophysis and Sterling. Please see: http://home.att.net/~Paul.N.Lee/Tried-Use_Counts.html. I suggest that this be put to consensus - let those wikipedians who are knowledgeable about fractals decide on this matter. I have made about 14,000 fractals and used about 20 different fractal generators and Tierazon is, in my humble opinion, the best of these. Soler97 (talk) 05:24, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

:*Comment - Soler97, please indicate at the beginning of your comment, in bold, whether you want the article to be kept, deleted, or is it a comment? And are you spamming? Looks to me that you are, because I saw your talk page, you've got no user page, and you've created this article. - ÆÅM «(fætsøn!) 06:54, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand why you say that I am spamming. What difference would it make whether I have a user page or not? Soler97 (talk) 08:17, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Please assume good faith; a registered user is free to create an article regardless of whether they have a userpage. :) Somno (talk) 06:58, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete; I can't find any coverage in reliable sources that shows this software meets notability criteria. Might be great software, but that doesn't mean it's automatically notable. Somno (talk) 06:28, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - ad-like and written like it's a substitute for the product's original documentation. Only links are to the maker's page and the installation instructions (they have no info about the actual product) - ÆÅM «(fætsøn!) 06:54, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Please explain what you mean by "they have no info about the actual product". Soler97 (talk) 08:17, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for being blind, rude and ignorant before, but you should have provided more links in the article, I've done a Google search. - ÆÅM «(fætsøn!) 06:53, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No need to apologise, but if you found some links that are useful please let me know about them. Soler97 (talk) 08:56, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete According to Wikipedia:Notability (software): Software is notable if it has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the software's author(s). The article does not establish notability according to that guideline, nor does it fit the exceptions outlined on that page. Of course, if those sources exist and are added before this discussion ends, I can't see why this article couldn't be kept.TheRingess (talk) 07:17, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I found a reference to Tierazon in a German book called "Leben und Tod durch Zufall und Seele" By Steffen Grimm viz "82 Solche Bilder mit 16 Millionen Farben lassen sich zB mit dem Computerprogramm Tierazon erstellen. Das Programm ist im Internet verfügbar. " I think it is referring to images made by Tierazon.

I also found this: http://math.unipa.it/~grim/cieaem/cieaem57_codetta.pdf

Soler97 (talk) 08:36, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Nom: If you want knowledgeable people to take a look this needs to be put to some mathematicians. - Mgm|^(talk) 11:59, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. —Mgm|^(talk) 12:03, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I can find no clear evidence of notability (e.g. Google Scholar, Google News all dates, Google Books). I don't think one footnote in a book in German and one mention in a table in a conference paper is enough. By contrast Apophysis seems to have generated at least a bit more scholarly interest (Google Scholar "Apophysis fractal"; some hits are not about the software but several clearly are). (Sterling is too common a word / name for Google to be of much use). All these can be mentioned at Fractal generating software though, which could usefully be expanded to compare and contrast them, perhaps in a table, and could include one external link per program. Qwfp (talk) 17:00, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note Tierazon was equal 5th among the programs used in the last FAME fractal competition, which had 700 entries: http://www.wack.ch/fame/afc3/kodgal.html Soler97 (talk) 23:05, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Please read Wikipedia:Notability (software)TheRingess (talk) 23:31, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I have read the guidelines, which apparently no longer reflect consensus. It seems to me that if fractal generating software is worth an article in wikipedia then the most important examples of the genre are also worth documenting. Am I wrong? Soler97 (talk) 03:11, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, if said software can pass the notability guidelines.Ironholds (talk) 05:34, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep If I were looking for a software program to generate Fractals then I would definitely consider Tierazon. I believe, that the information about this program is important, relevant and should be kept. If this article was to be deleted then most other software referenced under 'Fractal generating software' should be deleted as well.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Conanth (talk • contribs)
Delete. WP:SPAM. Whether a product deserved plaudits is not our business; we are not Consumer Reports. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:43, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Please read 'Fractal generating software'. Are you prepared to delete all the other referenced software as well?

If necessary; but I don't see why it should be; the others are passable, if trivial stubs, which don't read like sales brochures; merging all of them in would be another reasonable solution. (Apophysis has minor problems; but is this due to Soler97's recent tweaking?) Septentrionalis PMAnderson 03:31, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note I had a look at google keywords and found that Tierazon had an average search volume of 1,600 compared to fractint's 1,000. Yet fractint is obviously an important program. https://adwords.google.com/select/KeywordToolExternal Soler97 (talk) 02:00, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete spam. Themfromspace (talk) 03:38, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. If you type the phrase Tierazon Fractal into Google's main search you get over 18000 hits. This seems like it is notable. I don't understand what google adwords has to do with anything. The number of Google hits may not be part of Wikipedia's guidelines but common sense says that it should be. In today's electronic world of the internet there will be many things that are obviously notable but don't appear much in printed publications. Delaszk (talk) 11:38, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I believe that google adwords is highly relevant, as it tells you what is the frequency of usage of any search string. How many hits you get on a string is one measure of its relevance, how many people use that string is perhaps an even better one. Soler97 (talk) 19:51, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The way I look at it, and this is just my opinion and perhaps does not reflect consensus, is that a high google hit count is a necessary condition to determine notability of a piece of software, but is not a sufficient condition to guarantee notability. I'm not going to write a lengthy explanation of why I believe that, it just seems like common sense to me. I understand that there may be other pieces of software that have articles but don't meet the notability guidelines, but the disposition of those articles should be a separate discussion. Peace out.TheRingess (talk) 20:57, 6 November 2008 (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.