Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/AutoTRAX DEX


 * 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.  Sandstein  07:47, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

AutoTRAX DEX

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Non-notable and questionable product with frequenty changing product name, company name, author and web site every couple of months, but always trying to capitalize on the "Autotrax" name, which is actually the name of a well-known but completely unrelated product: Autotrax by Protel Systems. Before this article existed, the Autotrax article and various other articles were frequently SPAMed with information about this product, but since no reliable references can be found for Autotrax DEX (under this or any of its former names), and since some COI users have repeatedly tried to change the company name, web site and author once more without providing sources, and since these newer names do not line up with the only reliable company info found in UK business registries, all of this must be considered as some kind of SPAM by some SPA/COI users (including the company owner and apparent author of the software). So, it is really overdue to delete this article. However, I'm sure this will cause the legitimate Autotrax article to be SPAMed again. Matthiaspaul (talk) 18:44, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 18:58, 10 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete. The article makes no claim to WP:N for this EDA product. It gives details such as using Microsoft.Net 4 and having Microsoft Office interfaces, but those claims do not show WP:N. I don't know if it is a "questionable product" or an excellent one, but that does not relate to WP:N. A Google search turned up lots of info about downloading the product, but I didn't see any substantial comment about it. "A Guide to Low-Cost PCB Tools" is an EE Times article (https://www.eetimes.com/author.asp?section_id=36&doc_id=1319924). EE Times carries substantial weight, but AutoTRAX DEX is just listed as one product out of eight, and the author states he's only tried one product, DipTrace, and hopes to learn more about the others later. It may be a fabulous product, but I don't see notability. Glrx (talk) 21:03, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment. I just saw that we already had an article AutoTRAX about the same non-notable product as discussed here. It was deleted some while ago. --Matthiaspaul (talk) 00:09, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment. AutoTRAX is the trademark of Ilija Kovacevic, the developer of AutoTRAX and Active3D. Trademarks 2,469,410 and 2,461,452 See https://active3d.com/. See user forum http://forum.dexpcb.com/. AutoTRAX first marked in 2000, Over 18 years ago. AutoTRAX videos https://www.youtube.com/user/AutoTRAXDEX 1,116 subscribers, 308,520 views. Company detail https://active3d.com/about-us/. Seems like the objectors might have a secondary motive here. Censorship of competition. These are facts not woolly hateful thinking. Delete this deletion request. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.151.213.44 (talk) 15:52, 11 August 2018‎ (UTC)
 * The only info I could find is this: https://www.trademarkia.com/company-kovacevic-ilija-3191588-page-1-2 and it is for AUTOTRAX, not AutoTRAX or Autotrax, the other is for Active3D. Both are expired for more than ten years.
 * However, this doesn't really matter, as patents, trademarks, wordmarks, your web-cite and forum, or youtube channels are no reliable references per WP:RS. And they don't help to establish notability per WP:N. For this you'd need independent coverage in serious magazines and journals discussing the features of the program based on their experience. Without this there is no encyclopedic relevance and not the slightest hope this article will survive.
 * The fact that there is no independent coverage over all those years indicates that the product is not notable. --Matthiaspaul (talk) 21:42, 12 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Comment. Who nominated this for deletion. Please do your research. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DavidHemingway (talk • contribs) 16:38, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I did my research and even tried to rescue the article for some while, hoping that reliable sources would be brought by. However, since this did not happen and since you and other single-purpose accounts and IPs continue to sneak unsourced information into this and related articles, this now has to go. Enough is enough.
 * --Matthiaspaul (talk) 21:42, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
 * No you did not do your research. I suggest the 'others' are antagonists. Anyway delete it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DavidHemingway (talk • contribs) 23:22, 12 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Surely the article will. The deletion will still be ongoing. I suggest that you stop making attacks like this. Comment on contributions, not on the contributor. theinstantmatrix (talk) 07:10, 13 August 2018 (UTC)


 * If the contributor is in error then surely he/she should be brought to account. This is not an attack.
 * You say 'Surely the article will' then clearly the deletion is prejudged; so, delete it. Stop procrastinating and get on with it.
 * --(unsigned comment by User:DavidHemingway on 2018-08-13T11:28:22‎)
 * Please sign your comments with four tildes per WP:SIGNATURE - the software will then replace the tildes by your signature when you save an edit.
 * "Predicting" the outcome of this discussion is not any kind of prejudice on the editor's part, but just gathered experience based on the criteria our articles must met and the very weak and completely unsourced state (with even contradicting statements like the author's and company's name) the article in question is in.
 * Your connection to the subject puts you in a position that you might know where the product was discussed in independent sources per WP:RS. If so, than please bring by those sources ASAP. This could help show notability per WP:N and is the only way for the article to survive. But please first read those linked guidelines, because bringing by links to the company's site is not going to help - such information could only be used to further flesh out details in an article about a subject much beyond the threshold of notability already.
 * --Matthiaspaul (talk) 10:28, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Not adding more. Others keep deleting/changing what I add. I wonder who? Best just delete the page ASAP.
 * --(unsigned comment by User:DavidHemingway on 2018-08-14T01:31:27‎)
 * You blanked the page and sabotaged another, no wonder you were reverted.
 * In general, it's good that you added information to the article, however, it is important that the information can be sourced from reliable references per WP:RS, and also for the information to be correct. Your edits were changed where they appeared to be incorrect or unsourced.
 * For example, it was correct to state the company name is "DEX 2020 Ltd.", not "Kovac Software" or "AutoTRAX Software", as is stated on one of the web-sites and inserted into the article, because DEX 2020 is the name found in the business registries (the most trustable information we have found so far, still assuming this is a legitimate business at all). However, the company is (and also the former wordmark was) registered to Ilija Kovacevic, not Iliya Kovac (as inserted by you among others). The web-site and also various older statements of the author in newsgroups are full of inaccuracies and bold, but unsustained statements. There is a documented thread where the author of the software was publicly revealing private customer information when he didn't like some statements of that customer, indicating that it can be dangerous for end users to be a customer of that company. "As is" this is nothing that we have to judge about at Wikipedia, but combined with several other observations, it raises the question if the company and software is for real and a serious business, or if it is some fake, SPAM or even malware operation. These observations include:
 * The public presentation has been a "moving target" for years with frequent name changes of the product, company, site, and author, which is the opposite of what a serious business typically does. It looks as if someone is trying to cover up a past track record. In contrast to these changes, the product demo screenshots remained static over the years (as if there would be no ongoing development on the software at all). The site tries to give the impression of being a large corporation with lots of employees (most of them looking too "good" to be real) while it actually appears to be a one-man-show - so this is all made up and fake. At the same time the web site does not even reveal the most basic information about the core functionality of the program any potential user of EDA software would need to know before trying out the product - so only absolute beginners in the EDA business, who do not even know what to look and ask for, would be lured into trying out the software. This combined with the "kidnapping" of the "Autotrax" name of a famous (former) product competing in the same market, the complete lack of any independent coverage of the software, the advertisments (SPAM) and copyright violations inserted into various Wikipedia articles (including this one) by several single-purpose accounts (including the author of the software) and IPs makes the whole operation look untrustworthy and as if someone is trying to trick users into downloading some executable from a fake site rather than sell some serious EDA software, which could be used to develop more than only trivial designs.
 * While the observerations are fact-based (anyone can look them up in the web and in Wikipedia edit histories), the conclusions drawn from them could be subjective. Nevertheless, the bottom line is that the company web site cannot be trusted at all, and this also holds true to unsourced information added by unknown editors. Since our aim is to provide correct and unbiased information our readers can depend on, we need Wikipedia articles to establish notability per WP:N and statements be based on reliable references per WP:RS. Unfortunately, they do not seem to exist for this product.
 * --Matthiaspaul (talk) 02:14, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
 * How to I submit a formal complaint about your conduct? — Preceding unsigned comment added by DavidHemingway (talk • contribs) 09:52, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Why does Matthiaspaul who has the power to delete pages remain anonymous and does not display any of his credentials to legitimise his role in Wikipedia? I expect this edit to be deleted thereby proving my point about this user. This user should have his rights to delete pages removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DavidHemingway (talk • contribs) 11:48, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Just in case you missed this somehow so far, this "AfD" (Articles for deletion) process is a discussion about the question if Wikipedia should have a particular article or not. Users are encouraged to research the subject and present their (educated) opinions, ideally citing our policies and guidelines (which are based on Wikipedia community consensus, not personal preferences), and in the end an admin will decide on the validity of the arguments presented and the state of the article if it gets deleted or not. Wikipedia articles must be notable, that's why the article content or arguments presented in this discussion must establish notability based on criteria given in WP:N. Also, statements in an article must be supported by reliable sources per WP:RS. If you can, please bring by those sources because I tried to find them and could not find any. --Matthiaspaul (talk) 19:35, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
 * You said 'Nevertheless, the bottom line is that the company web site cannot be trusted at all' This is totally wrong, insulting and based on flawed argument. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DavidHemingway (talk • contribs) 08:44, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I repeat How to I submit a formal complaint about your conduct? — Preceding unsigned comment added by DavidHemingway (talk • contribs) 08:47, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Will you read and accept WP:RS (a Wikipedia guideline based on community consensus), as you have been instructed many times now? Then you'll know why the company site (and related sites) is not a trustable source. This has nothing to do with personal preferences.
 * The discussion is pointless unless you bring by the requested reliable independent references to support the statements in the article and establish notability. Time is running... --Matthiaspaul (talk) 10:10, 15 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete. Just delete the page. What are you waiting for? Stop procrastination. As I said, I'm done with Wikipedia as I do not trust the content as it is censored by the likes of Matthiaspaul. It cannot be trusted. Do not delete this comment. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DavidHemingway (talk • contribs) 11:53, 15 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Strong Delete – No sources, no notability, nothing of any importance in the article. Absolutely no reason at all to keep. Redditaddict69 15:48, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Super Strong Delete – Yep, do it already. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DavidHemingway (talk • contribs) 23:38, 17 August 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.