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. ✗plicit 12:02, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Zemax (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article was originally deleted in 2005, and restored in 2008 - not sure why, really, because it's entirely unreferenced and the amount of external links in the body says WP:BROCHURE to me. I did do a WP:BEFORE just to make sure there wasn't a bunch of coverage, but I couldn't find anything. MediaKyle (talk) 11:20, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Products and Software. MediaKyle (talk) 11:20, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: There are some coursebooks in the various Gscholar/Books that talk about the software [1] was the first one I pulled up. Oaktree b (talk) 14:24, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: Previous versions had sources and weren't linkspam, see here. A IP changed it to the current promo/spam version in this revision. Another IP changed it back to the sourced version here, before being unnecessarily reverted for being blocked at the time in this edit, bringing it to how it is now. Schützenpanzer (Talk) 18:48, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep zemax is notable software. It's used widely for optical system design, though it has been acquired by another company (Ansys iirc) and I'm not sure how long it will be around. Needs editing or reversion as suggested by Schützenpanzer Anonrfjwhuikdzz (talk) 01:19, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The software is notable. Widely used, and books have been written about it. The article as noted above had been well referenced but was botched by an editor who didn't get the concept of references. I have restored the last source-supported version of the article.--Srleffler (talk) 05:17, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: There seems to be decent coverage in the sources provided to justify keeping this, although some are primary/press releases. Schützenpanzer (Talk) 17:00, 22 March 2025 (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.