Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/FeatureCAM

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 delete. Power series will be dealt with separately. Mark Arsten (talk) 15:39, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

FeatureCAM

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

Not notable software. — Ṟ Ṉ™ 03:56, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:GNG; non-notable software. TBr and ley 04:07, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:09, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - any chance we could include the following articles, all of which are other products of same company:

In all cases, most of the "sources" are actually just company press releases reprinted by tech sites or affiliates. The one or two articles about each product aren't, in my opinion, anywhere near enough coverage to justify WP:N. We've had a few CAM-spam company articles lately. Maybe someone told them WP was a good way to promote their products. More likely, one or two jumped on WP and created promo-spam articles and other followed so as not to be left out.

I can accept that the "parent company" Delcam justifies an article. Perhaps each of the above should be merged into / redirected to Delcam? No need for each individual product to have an article. And keeping them just encourages those responsible for the above four to create articles for each of Delcam's 50 other non-notable products. Stalwart111 05:16, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I agree with your decision to delete the FeatureCAM article as there is a lack of information on it and currently nothing worth an encyclopedic entry. However PowerMILL, PowerSHAPE and PowerINSPECT have all been based around other software articles on Wikipedia. I do not understand how articles like VoluMill, Unigraphics and GibbsCAM deserve articles but PowerMILL, PowerSHAPE and PowerINSPECT do not? This seems unjustified and as a student numerous times I have looked up CAM and CAD software on Wikipedia to get a brief overview on what they are. Notability is subjective and maybe you do not consider the articles notable but many engineers and those in the manufacturing industry however would. I can find thousands of articles on the most obscure people and places on Wikipedia so I do not see how these articles (excluding FeatureCAM) are not. Ash.raymond

The fact that they were based on other articles or that other similar articles exist is what WP:OTHERSTUFF is all about. It doesn't matter if Wikipedia already has articles about competitor products - each subject must be individually notable to be included here. Notability is not subjective - notability is determined by the depth of "significant coverage" in available reliable sources to verify that a subject is notable. It's not about "deserving" or not - once subjects have received significant coverage in reliable sources then they can be considered notable enough to justify an article here. If those other articles/subjects also don't meet Wikipedia criteria, feel free to nominate them for deletion. Stalwart111 03:59, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 02:35, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete I'm not seeing the sort of sources that evidence notability under WP:GNG. Did not evaluate the other software packages, so consider me an abstention on them. --j⚛e decker ^talk 04:59, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, - filelake shoe  14:00, 3 December 2012 (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.