Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pcb-rnd

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 no consensus. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 22:43, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Pcb-rnd

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Listing for an non-notable software package. Was nominated for PROD, an editor removed the tag after adding "independent sources". However, these sources consisted of a citation to another wiki page, links to software package listings on servers, and coverage at "Hackaday"., a tech blog. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 17:08, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:26, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:26, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Defending: this is the only active descendant of the original (quite notable) software package (gEDA pcb). pcb-rnd is in very active development across the last five years. For example, its data model is a superset of all known free/libre competitors, as it provides means to import their formats (netlists, board design data), which is a very strong and unique feature. More to say, pcb-rnd developers are in process of forming a full-featured FLOSS EDA ecosystem, building bridges and data-flows to other EDA packages. Regarding "independent sources" argument: the article about another electronics-related project of similar scale have no independent references at all, but was never nominated for deletion. We are all devoting our spare time to support FLOSS movement (by writing code, docs, articles). So lets improve and promote them, rather than hiding and deleting related articles from community. 185.254.139.42 (talk) 04:37, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, notability per WP:N [1] for inclusion as this software is a subject of instruction in universities. Miloh (talk) 08:44, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Could you provide a citation supporting this claim that it's a subject of instruction? The article itself doesn't make that claim, and while I see that apparently it was at least partly developed as part of a thesis project, "subject of instruction" generally means that there are entire courses devoted to it (or that at least use it heavily). I don't think being the subject of a master's thesis quite satisfies that criterion on its own, and a Google Scholar search for the package-name doesn't return much. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 17:17, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, the citation in question is for a 79 page thesis paper published by the university, not an article. I've read it, it's in my field of expertise. Check the conclusion, figure 2-7, and page 22. For credit or lab classwork towards EE and CE degrees, EDA capture and layout tools including pcb-rnd are taught (although the software was not developed as part of thesis project though, this is incorrect). While the page will need more citations, this criteria should meet WP:N for software. Also, per 'Nominating for Deletion' [2] there's a note to "be sure to verify the page is non-notable, not just missing citations", even so, the page went to AfD without sending a message to the page creator asking for clarification. Let's remove AfD and add a refimprove template for the page. Miloh (talk) 04:31, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think it is worth noting that wikipedia and pcb-rnd have similar goals, namely, data preservation. pcb-rnd is the only FLOSS EDA software package actively implementing support for legacy file formats such as eagle binary, protel autotrax and so forth, which will help to preserve the digital legacy stored on old media but no longer accessible to those engaged in digital archaeology, preservation of hardware and preservation of older technology generally. Eliminating references to pcb-rnd on wikipedia diminishes the efforts of community driven efforts to preserve knowledge. I donate to wikipedia because I believe in keeping information accessible to all comers. I donate time to pcb-rnd for the same reasons (16 September 2018). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.210.20.127 (talk) 14:19, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:11, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor 07:01, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Still no consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kpg jhp jm 14:51, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to PCB (software), which will enhance that article and preserve encyclopedic content (WP:ATD-M). North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:05, 12 October 2018 (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.