Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Photomatix Pro


 * 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.

Non-admin closure, the result was snowball keep. &mdash;Politizer talk / contribs 17:32, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Photomatix Pro

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Software with no assertion of notability. PROD contested in June.  Sandstein  16:33, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete per notability concerns. flaminglawyerc 16:41, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep but seriously, if it's notable, say it is. It's very misleading when it doesn't. flaminglawyerc 00:32, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Strong keep I use it and it works. Software does not assert anything, the user base does. NVO (talk) 16:48, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
 * It doesn't matter if it works; what matters is if it's notable (which, as pointed out by me and Sandstein, it isn't). flaminglawyerc 17:03, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Leaving Sandstein aside, how would you know? What makes it non-notable while PTgui Pro apparently is? Isn't it time to delete CS4 as well, as it is still cannot beat specialized tools in HDR? NVO (talk) 17:25, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
 * That's not the kind of argument suitable for a deletion discussion; see WP:WAX.  Sandstein   17:43, 26 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep. Although the article does not say so, this software does meet our minimum notability requirements. Your pick. --  Blanchardb - Me•MyEars•MyMouth - timed 19:00, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Search results are not reliable sources. Which coverage, specifically, makes this software notable as defined in WP:N?  Sandstein   08:19, 27 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions.   -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:58, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions.   -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:59, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep, but rework. Article fails notability requirement, software really doesn't. Jo7hs2 (talk) 00:20, 27 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep and improve. The software is notable.  Reviews in 3rd party publications:  macuser.com, PC World, Macworld.  --George100 (talk) 13:07, 27 December 2008 (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.