Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Altium Designer


 * 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. -- Patar knight - chat/contributions 00:44, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

Altium Designer

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

The contents of the article is a catalog listing for the product. It'ssourcd primarily to their press releases.  DGG ( talk ) 23:52, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 04:31, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 04:32, 15 November 2018 (UTC)


 * Comment: ISBN-13: 9781599428697 ... p122 ... paper "Design and Implementation of an Elevator Controller using Embedded Tool Altium Designer" looks significant ... possible also P260 in the same book. Bit rushed to look into this fully currently.  This doesn't address other article issues though ... Djm-leighpark (talk) 09:52, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep: Running through various hits books, papers, blogs this appears to be a heavyweight albeit possibly expensive tool and used in universities etc. Articles exist for its rivals ... e.g. EAGLE (program).  The problem appears to be with the content and presentation, and possibly neutrality, so ultimately fixable.  I've attempted to re-write one section which may help slightly; but I feel it needs a criticisms / reception section; history more targeted at the product not the company and terms explained more fully and in context.  I've already spent time I haven't got on this so may not be able to improve it further.Djm-leighpark (talk) 23:51, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep As far as I can tell it has more than sufficient WP:NEXIST to support GNG.  Aoziwe (talk) 12:10, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep I second the opinion that WP:NEXIST applies, and sufficient number of independent secondary sources are referenced to establish WP:N. Checked the product mind share on Electronics Engineering Stack Exchange by comparing tag counts, and it came up first with EAGLE (program) being close second, so while not directly reference-able, this confirms CNG in my view. I'll try again to find some reliable references for expanding the criticism section to present a more balanced impression, but finding reputable sources (read: not forum rants) for negative opinions is not easy. Pointers to specific clauses where the neutrality is disputed would also be helpful (the article talk page might be a better place for this).  Geometryofshadows (talk) 21:04, 19 November 2018 (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.