Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/SolidCAM (2nd nomination)


 * 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. JohnCD (talk) 15:49, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

SolidCAM
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log )

Clear violation of WP:ADVERT. It has been nominated for deletion previously ant at that time the page was entirely the work of a single editor sharing the surname of the company's founder and CEO. That editor is no longer active and the majority of the updates since have been anonymous. No improvements have been made to rener the article encyclopedic, not to provide citations from reliable sources. Various suggested sources were mentioned (by the author) during the previous deletion debate, but they have not been incorporated; and in any case, they appeared to be mostly announcments in trade journals instigated by company press releases. DaveApter (talk) 11:20, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 17:13, 1 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete: The 21 links in the previous AfD are random crap that don't show notability. SL93 (talk) 23:42, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 12:26, 8 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete No sources either in article (well, there are no sources in the article, period) or the slew of linked press releases in the previous AfD debate which are sufficient to pass WP:GNG or WP:CORP. If it was a more recent article I'd be tempted to slap it with a G11 tag; it's blatant promotion. Yunshui 雲&zwj;水 12:54, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete Yep, looks like advertising. No reliable sources to be found. Nwlaw63 (talk) 20:44, 9 February 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.