Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/MicMac (software)


 * 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 no consensus‎__EXPECTED_UNCONNECTED_PAGE__. Two relistings and no new comments means it's time to close this discussion. But you can continue the discussion of a possible Merge or Redirect to another article on this article's talk page. I don't think you two editors are that far away from a decision given a little more time than what's allowed here. Liz Read! Talk! 05:55, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

MicMac (software)

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

I believe it doesn't merit a standalone article. No reliable independent sources indicating notability of this software, thus it doesn't meet WP:NSOFT. Was PROD'ed before (reason: No indication of noteworthiness, no evidence of notability.). PROD was declined with the summary: as per Wikipedia:Notability (software)#Inclusion. Not sure how it satisfies any of the criteria listed in the "Inclusion" section.  Delta  space 42 (talk • contribs) 05:56, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Computing and Software.  Delta  space 42  (talk • contribs) 05:56, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions.  WC  Quidditch   ☎   ✎  07:13, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 07:09, 29 December 2023 (UTC) Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Arbitrarily0   ( talk ) 03:13, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Keep: it satisfies WP:NSOFT (inclusion criterion #4) as it's a topic convered in the "Photogrammetric terminology", an authoritative source published in The Photogrammetric Record, the official academic journal of the Photogrammetry Society (UK). fgnievinski (talk) 14:46, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
 * @Fgnievinski: It is just mentioned there (as terminology), the inclusion criterion #4 says It has been recognized as having historical or technical significance by reliable sources. It's not WP:SIGCOV, so doesn't count.  Delta  space 42 (talk • contribs) 14:58, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
 * That's a selective source, not a comprehensive listing. Thus, mere inclusion automatically satisfies recognition of historical or technical significance. The academic editor already exerted their judgment by selecting which software to include and exclude from the terminology. fgnievinski (talk) 15:28, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
 * I think it would be a good idea to redirect MicMac to Photogrammetry section and add a line about MicMac there. Because I don't think it deserves a standalone article, but it definitely deserves to be mentioned in relation to Photogrammetry. What do you think?  Delta  space 42 (talk • contribs) 15:07, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
 * There's Comparison of photogrammetry software. Depending on one's inclinations (good will or ill will), probably most of the software mentioned there could be challenged on the basis of WP:NSOFT. fgnievinski (talk) 15:41, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
 * @Fgnievinski to be fair, the section is called "Comparison of notable packages" and MicMac isn't there (though it is in the "See also" section)  Delta  space 42 (talk • contribs) 16:25, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.


 * 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.