Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PowerMILL


 * 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   merge to Delcam.  MBisanz  talk 06:29, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

PowerMILL

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

I am also nominating the following related pages:

Nominating on behalf of Stalwart111, who requested these to be listed in a separate discussion: "In all cases, most of the "sources" are actually just company press releases reprinted by tech sites or affiliates. The one or two articles about each product aren't, in my opinion, anywhere near enough coverage to justify WP:N. We've had a few CAM-spam company articles lately. Maybe someone told them WP was a good way to promote their products. More likely, one or two jumped on WP and created promo-spam articles and other followed so as not to be left out. I can accept that the "parent company" Delcam justifies an article. Perhaps each of the above should be merged into / redirected to Delcam? No need for each individual product to have an article. And keeping them just encourages those responsible for the above four to create articles for each of Delcam's 50 other non-notable products." Mark Arsten (talk) 15:43, 3 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment I came here to comment on the PowerMILL article. Unfortunately I'm unwilling to search for coverage about three different products. Though they have similarities, the articles seem to be sourced from different publications. My inclination is that the three articles seem to be poorly sourced and need clean-up to remove unsourced information. Some of the sources seem to have a very small circulation within the industry. Sionk (talk) 19:20, 3 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment - thanks, Mark, for moving these out of the original AFD and into their own. I suppose my initial concern with these three still remains - each is supported by "sources" that range from re-prints of company press releases to papers on functionality written by company employees. There's one or two how-to guides but even they seem to have come from people connected to the company or at least people advised by people from the company. They (all three) seem like a perfect example of why we have WP:PRODUCT. Obviously the nomination is essentially my nomination so I wont !vote, but I suppose it would be fair to say that I wouldn't disagree with a Merge to Delcam, as I suggested in my original commentary. Stalwart 111  22:23, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:05, 7 December 2012 (UTC)


 * merge into the company as the reasonable solution. If more material is found, it can be separated again. The merge should retain the key information, which I think would be all of the article here except the list of revisions. Anyone urging an outright delete, should explain why a merge isn't suitable, because according to WP:Deletion Policy, merges are preferred to deletions.  DGG ( talk ) 21:37, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  MBisanz  talk 21:12, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

 
 * Merge into Delcam, as per DGG's suggestion 1292simon (talk) 00:51, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Automatic Strikeout  ( T •  C) 21:51, 17 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Merge and Redirect There is useful information in the Power(MILL|SHAPE|INSPECT) articles and merging them into the Delcam article, per DGG's arguments, is a good solution. I would also recommend a redirect for these terms to facilitate user search. Mark viking (talk) 23:06, 17 December 2012 (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.