Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stella (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 keep. No support for deletion apart from the nominator. Davewild (talk) 17:22, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Stella (software)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

There is little evidence of notability per WP:PRODUCT. I think WP:NOT is relevant. The only independent source seems to be the article in PC Plus magazine. The general notability guideline requires multiple independent sources that discuss the subject in detail. This does not seem to be the case here. Sławomir Biały (talk) 13:05, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. North America1000 22:17, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. North America1000 22:17, 16 May 2015 (UTC)


 * I'm not in a position to judge notability. I have the software and I use it, and generated many of the geometric images for wikipedia with it. I helped write the article, but confess it isn't very useful anyway in its current form. Tom Ruen (talk) 01:49, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

Here's some online references to the correct software, not considering the quality or usefulness in content in adding to the article content. Tom Ruen (talk) 02:14, 21 May 2015 (UTC) Keep – Though the article could be improved, I think it is keepable in its present form. This page points out the connection to regular polytopes and the work of H. S. M. Coxeter. Our article on Great icosahedron uses diagrams generated by this software. It appears there is some overlap between what Mathematica can do and the Stella software regarding polyhedrons. (Here is a great icosahedron as generated by Mathematica).You would think that the more popular math journals would have articles on generation of polyhedra with software, and if they don't cite Stella, they must cite some of its competitors and we would find out which ones they are. Well-known published pictures of star polyhedra, like the one of the cover of Proofs and Refutations, seem to have been made by photographing models built by hand rather than created by software. EdJohnston (talk) 03:02, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Mindhacker: 60 Tips, Tricks, and Games to Take Your Mind to the Next Level By Ron Hale-Evans, Marty Hale-Evans
 * Coordinates of polyhedra were calculated using Great Stella [2]. In this program, there are 17 stellations (the icosahedron is not counted). Our notation, for instance SI06, means the sixth stellation in this sequence.
 * Great Software for Polyhedrons and Polytopes «Stella» and «Great Stella» These are great polyherons programs that the author intended to be the ultimate one, and it truely is a excellent program. This is probably the most comprehensive software for polyhedrons. Author is by Robert Webb.
 * Magnus Wenninger, author of the introduction to Polyhedron Models for the Classroom, now uses a program called Stella to design his projects. This program provides a 3D perspective as well as the 2D view needed for construction and assembly.
 * 10 am – 11 am – Polyhedra Power! – Have you heard of Stella http://www.software3d.com/Stella.php? This is a funky software program which allows you to design, print and assemble your own personal polyhedron. We will be operating Great Stella and a color printer to produce polyhedra only limited by your imagination! Come join us for fun polyhedra creation!
 * The calculation of intersections of extended polyhedron faces is a tedious process to do by hand, but it can be easily done using interactive computer programs such as Stellation Applet [3] or Great Stella [4].
 * Stella is the name of a computerized polyhedron creator. Designed by Robert Webb of Australia, the program allows you to create a polyhedron on the screen and print out its net, which you can then cut out and assemble into a real-life 3D model of your original creation. The Stella software contains a built-in polyhedron library that includes all the Platonic solids, or regular polyhedrons, as well as many other shapes.
 * Cylinder intersections with the program Stella 4D, Dr. Ulrich Mikloweit
 * p.s. EdJohnston, the primary purpose of Stella software was for computing printing nets for hand-built physical models. Some of the nets are also uploaded to wikipedia, like for the harder to see Johnson solids. Tom Ruen (talk) 03:32, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't understand this vote. Yes, polyhedra are notable things.   We have articles about them.  The star polyhedron on the cover of the 1976 book Proofs and Refutations was not created using this piece of software.  Perhaps it was made using the methods described in the 1951 book Mathematical Models by Cundy and Rollett.  Anyway, there are lots of sources, both online and in good old-fashioned books, that will allow you to draw nets that can be cut out to make whatever polyhedra you want.  Surely not all of these things are also notable just because polyhedra are.   Sławomir Biały  (talk) 11:16, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

This is Robert Webb, author of Stella, so I may be biased, but here are my thoughts. Regarding being an advert, I did not write the page or ask for it to be written. Robert Austin created it and Tom Ruen has also done a lot of work on it. It does not appear to have sensational language, just stating what the software does. I have made small changes now and then when something was out of date or incorrect, but tried not to get involved with the content too much. As to notability, PC Plus is not the only independent source: I don't know whether simply using images created in Stella adds to wikipedia's concept of notability. If not, then the off-line references would be limited to the PC Plus article, the TV spot, and Popko's book "Divided Spheres" which reviews Stella over 6 pages. The Age article was online, but had a brief mention in the printed paper which you can see here:. Someone should add these references to the wiki article maybe? Tom has already listed a bunch of online references, many of which I didn't even know about, and there are many more. RobertCWebb (talk) 04:07, 21 May 2015 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * The wiki article already includes a reference to a story about it on television, including a video of the story. Why overlook that?
 * Stella also got a write-up in Edward S. Popko's book "Divided Spheres" on pages 350-355. On Amazon you can preview some pages including 352, 354 and 355 within this range.  See  and
 * David Darling's "The Universal Book of Mathematics" also includes photos of polyhedra made using Stella software. From the acknowledgements: "Thanks especially go to ...Robert Webb (www.software3d.com) for numerous photos of his wonderful, homemade polyhedra...".  See
 * Matt Parker's "Things to Make and Do in the Fourth Dimension" includes images from Stella4D and mentions me in the acknowledgements p454: "Most of the renders of 4D shapes were done using the program Stella4D developed by Robert Webb". You can see some pages in the Amazon preview including images from Stella4D, eg p215, 216.  See
 * An image from Stella4D also appears in Giulio Tononi's "Phi" p214 (not in the Amazon preview). See
 * Article in Melbourne newspaper The Age about me and Stella and the models it can be used to produce. See  (alas the images in the article seem to have gone for some reason).
 * Wikipedia itself uses dozens of images from Stella in various articles about geometry.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 03:28, 24 May 2015 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 11:00, 31 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep - Meets GNG, even if it's a little spammy. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 00:49, 1 June 2015 (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.