Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Daxcad


 * 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 per consensus that there is an absence of evidence of notability. bd2412 T 02:56, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

Daxcad

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Source search reveals little significant coverage of what appears to be non-notable software. Deprodded by page creator with dubious rationale.  Dr Strauss   talk   10:31, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 10:45, 12 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete I ran a specialized search on all industrial design journals I could find online, and absolutely nothing popped up. I also found two passing mentions in paywalled articles from 1987, giving DAXCAD as a typical example of CAD software, but that is well short of notability. Tigraan Click here to contact me 09:54, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

This article has been marked for deletion due to non-notable software which was based on an internet search presumably. I can understand this to a point. However DAXCAD was commercial software long before the advent of search engines and the internet. As such its not surprising that there are no references to this software - however this does not take away from the fact that DAXCAD was a notable software package in the United Kingdom and other countries in the 1980's and early 90's. I was not aware that just because something was not the subject of an internet search - that its not eligible for Wikipedia. I and others have transferred our knowledge of a well known and well used CAD software application to Wikipedia to make it part of the great knowledge base. Most information about DAXCAD would have been on paper. Before the concept of the search engine this kind of information would have been in trade journals, trade shows and so on. It doesnt take away from the notability at the time. If the concept of notability has to be that the information must be part of a google search - then of course the article should be removed. If the aspect of notability is time based - in that DAXCAD was notable in 1989 - but is no longer because its not used - then this article offers a way to ensure that the information about the software is indexed and kept for relative posterity. I do understand that when the information is in peoples heads and there is no electronic version of the information then it can be difficult to find notable examples. For example - Prof. Stuart Bunt had written a paper on DAXCAD - called Cream of the CAD Packages in 1986 - but he wrote this on an Apricot computer than never transferred its information to the internet. I was able to contact Prof Blunt in 2007 and he gave me the original reference 'Cream of the CAD packages, Daxcad by Practical Technology. Apricot file 1.7, 2-4. Bunt, S. M. 1986' however the file is lost in the mists of time. You cannot do an internet search - but it does not detract from its existence in 1986. I leave it to the immeasurably superior minds of Wikipedia guardians to make the decision - but you are erasing information which is part of small corner of human history that is perhaps not that interesting to everyone - but is - in my opinion - notable nevertheless. Dave Robertson 09:49, 17 October 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Davyrobertson (talk • contribs)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  A  Train talk 07:01, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
 * thanks for giving us what you have, but I have a few points.
 * its not surprising that there are no references to this software - however this does not take away from the fact that DAXCAD was a notable software package - You probably use "notable" in the usual meaning of the term, but on Wikipedia it has a very specific meaning, which is essentially "has been written about at length by reliable sources independent of the subject". So the lack of references is a lack of notability.
 * This being said, it is not necessary that such sources be accessible online. I am willing to accept your claim of an Apricot File article in 1986. However, if even you do not have access to it, it is not going to help a lot: we are not going to base any content on a source we cannot access! The requirement of sources is not a procedural quirk, it is how we strive to ensure Wikipedia articles are unbiased, non-speculative etc.
 * So basically the big question is: do you have access to that source (meaning you can read it)? Tigraan Click here to contact me 11:29, 20 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete. If WP:CSD covered software, this would have qualified. Alexius08 (talk) 22:44, 21 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep. Not only is it a link in the chain of CAD technology, but it is currently supported software - most recently updated: June 29, 2014 . As for the article, it needs work. Somewhere there a Wiki statement that DELETION IS NOT (fixing). Pi314m (talk) 22:42, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
 * For the accusation of "Another example of corporate promotion/spam" (below),
 * a summary of Talk:OpenVMS/Archive 1 @ 03:36, 21 June 2017 follows-
 * WP, unlike traditional encyclopedias, includes articles on commercial products
 * "And such articles must necessarily describe those products."
 * Some descriptions will necessarily ..be viewed as positive, i.e., reasons why one might consider buying the product.
 * There's more there.
 * My personal addition to the above-cited is: if the article has mistakes, please correct them. Even add negative statements, if true, such as slower than X, more complicated to use than Y, lacks feature Z, etc. Wiki is meant to be crowd-sourced. The article seems NPOV. Perhaps the one thing I see lacking is the scarcity of SourceForge-version specifics.
 * "Corporate promotion/spam" - does that apply to the dead as a door nail 1980s stuff, or to the SourceForge most-recent-update-2014 that's freely available for download. Pi314m (talk) 05:46, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
 * the problem in that case is to demonstrate that this software is "notable", meaning it has been described by previously published reliable sources independent of the subject. If it is not, the problem is not fixable. Being a link in the chain of CAD technology certainly is not enough (CAD is notable and we have an article about it, but see WP:INHERITED). Tigraan Click here to contact me 11:11, 27 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete Another example of corporate promotion/spam in violation of WP:Promotion which also fails WP:V as well. FockeWulf FW 190 (talk) 02:03, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete - lack of significant coverage. PhilKnight (talk) 00:25, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete Fails the GNG. I disagree with it being spam and I'd decline a db-A7. L3X1 (distænt write)  02:10, 28 October 2017 (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.

I did not have an opportunity to continue this debate before the article was deleted - however if one searches google books - one can find and indeed read a great deal of information about Daxcad https://www.google.com/search?tbm=bks&q=daxcad - I would assume most articles digitised from publications such as chartered mechanical engineer and from 1986-1990 range when Daxcad leading in its field Dave Robertson — Preceding unsigned comment added by Davyrobertson (talk • contribs) 15:32, 6 November 2017 (UTC)