Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Euclid (computer program)

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. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 21:11, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Euclid (computer program)

I can't find any reliable sources that shows notability. Fails WP:NOTABILITY.Schuym1 (talk) 22:44, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Reliable sources that establish notability: [1] [2] [3] [4]. JulesH (talk) 13:53, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:05, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It says development has stopped. What am I missing? HOw is this notable? ChildofMidnight (talk) 07:26, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Notability is not temporary. WP:NTEMP. If it was notable in the past, the fact that it is no longer under active development means nothing. Windows 3.1 is notable and is no longer developed. But if no reliable sources can be found proving notability, that is a separate issue. LinguistAtLarge 07:55, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your response. Was the product ever fully developed? I think saying it's no longer supported would be better than no longer developed. It wasn't clear to me reading the article whether the product was ever completed. ChildofMidnight (talk) 19:29, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- Keep. I think sources can be found (perhaps not on the web) to establish notability. LinguistAtLarge 17:44, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 08:00, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. I've provided several reliable sources above. There are plenty more, too, if people want to go through print magazines of the era. I was certainly well aware of this software at the time it was current, mainly through reading about it in the trade press. JulesH (talk) 13:47, 15 December 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.