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 prejudice towards a merge discussion. Mark Arsten (talk) 20:19, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Adobe Distiller[edit]

Adobe Distiller (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

Article does not comply with Wikipedia notability guideline and does nothing but offering a vague description of the subject. Does not have any sources. Adobe Acrobat already does a better job, so anything a merge can do is already done. Codename Lisa (talk) 12:51, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 16:16, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 16:16, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• keep WP:NOTTEMPORARY Like MS-DOS and WordPerfect, this is a piece of software that was at one time important but has since been discontinued. However for much of its history, this was a commercially significant means of generating PDFs. Andy Dingley (talk) 17:21, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. The article as nominated was poorly sourced, but I've cleaned that up and I believe it should now be clear that it passes WP:GNG. Although obsolete now, this should be irrelevant for notability as Andy Dingley has already noted. I don't think the proposed merge to the parent Acrobat article would be helpful (and in any case AfD is not for proposing merges): that article is already clogged with version history and lists of components, and doesn't really cover any of those components in any depth. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:31, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be happy with a merge to a section with Acrobat. The important thing is to note that Distiller was the route from PostScript to PDF. This sometimes hid as a route indirectly from a printer driver, but Distiller's trick (and what it was regularly used for specifically) was to be a PostScript processor. Andy Dingley (talk) 19:20, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Perhaps that's the best option because in some minor instances, the article had confused Distiller with Distiller Server. Distiller is not discontinued; it comes with Adobe Acrobat. Distiller Server is discontinued. Plus, the wording looks pretty much like Adobe Acrobat now. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 21:42, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Acrobat and the PDF format is one of the fundamental pieces of software in computer science history. I favor the lowest of low bars for inclusion here; this is not promotional or commercial, it is historic. For example, HERE is a nice history of PDF from prepressure.com, pointing out the relationship of the Distiller program to the history of PDF. Carrite (talk) 19:07, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Hi. You are right but this is not nomination for deleting either Acrobat or PDF. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 21:42, 17 August 2013 (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.