Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/AlphaCAM


 * 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. Despite the numerous responses from the article creator, the discussion below indicates that the software fails the notability requirements. -- jonny - m t  03:03, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

AlphaCAM

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Software with no assertion of notability. 9Nak (talk) 09:45, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

I was reading about CAD/CAM software here and found several links to AlphaCAM that had no destination, so added what I knew as a new page. I'll find out some numbers about how notable it is and edit the article (it's sold all over the world, used to make Rolex Watches, Aston Martin cars, all sorts). --RhinosoRoss (talk) 10:13, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
 * appears to have created an article about Alphacam (speedily deleted as spam) and added links to a couple of articles in the last few days, but other than that I can only find one other link. Do you recall where you saw "several links"? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 20:41, 30 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 20:42, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

When you do an Advanced Search for Alphacam or Licom you get three entries for Alphacam and two for Licom (that aren't put in by me). Someone else is also trying to get an alphacam page going, I've seen deletion messages on both licom and alphacam pages. I don't know much about the company and don't want to spend ages finding out, but a page should definitely exist for one one of the main products in CAD/CAM! so rather than deleting everyone's efforts, how about editing or suggesting changes yourselves? Surely I'm not supposed to know everything about them and put it all in perfectly first time?! When people are reading about CAD/CAM, they'll want to know about AlphaCAM. As I get more time I could write about it's use in things like the James Bond films, well known adverts etc. but I need to make sure I don't say anything that might be incorrect. There are lots more sections that AlphaCAM and Licom could be referenced from, but there's no point if the page is going to be continually deleted! --RhinosoRoss (talk) 07:44, 2 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions.   --  Fabrictramp  |  talk to me  23:24, 30 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete without prejudice; no evidence of notability. Notability is not contagious; you cannot "catch" it from your clients, nor does software become notable because it was used on a notable subject.-- Orange Mike  &#x007C;   Talk  14:12, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Anyone who works in a CAD/CAM related industry knows of Licom and AlphaCAM and will want to have pages representing them. I was trying to give what information I knew and have something at the end of the dead links on other pages that other people could add to. --RhinosoRoss (talk) 14:43, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

I'll try to get in touch with the marketing department and get some figures and links. Presumably you need things like number of users, turnover, sales per year... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.133.96.193 (talk • contribs)


 * No! There is nothing which is a poorer excuse for a reliable source than a marketing department (with the possible exception of some online forums). -- Orange Mike  &#x007C;   Talk  18:26, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Orangemike - what reliable sources do you suggest? I think Rhinosoross' point is that the company's marketing department may be able to point to independent sources to satisfy your objections. I would imagine that he doesn't necessarily have access to such sources himself. It looks to me like he is legitimately trying to add some useful, non-sales content regarding a widely-used piece of software in the CAD/CAM market. The fact that it is a known product in the market in indisputable. Search the web for industry-related journals if you require proof of this. To dismiss his efforts in presenting this information in as objective a way as he can seems a little churlish. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.3.222.22 (talk) 21:25, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

I've added a video link I've found on the AlphaCAM site which is another company (Asylum) talking about using Alphacam for designing and manufacturing a gun in a James Bond film and a robot girl in a BP Advert. I'm hoping that makes it notable, or at least interesting, but I'm concerned that it being from their own site might make it "blatant advertising" rather than "notable" :-/ I hope that admins will delete the link rather than the whole page if so! Comments welcome! --RhinosoRoss (talk) 07:46, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

I've created a redirect for the deleted Licom page to the AlphaCAM page and found a journal stating that Licom is "a worldwide leader in the supply of CAM software" and put that as a reference in the AlphaCAM page. Hopefully that makes Licom notable, but since you deleted the Licom page, I'm assuming you don't want it back, and since AlphaCAM is Licom's only CAM product, I'm also hoping that it makes AlphaCAM notable. Perhaps I need to state Licom's product range on the AlphaCAM page? But that might make some admin think it is advertising... I could really do with an wikipedia expert to edit it a bit for me and make it so that I'm not in danger of loosing my work! --RhinosoRoss (talk) 09:27, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

OK, so Planit now refer to 'Licom' as 'Alphacam': so the product name is taking over the company name, and, presumably, the data regarding the product/company is now recorded under the blanket title of Planit, so I am unlikely to get any more notability links than I have found so far. --RhinosoRoss (talk) 12:49, 6 June 2008 (UTC)


 * 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.