Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Solidcam


 * 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. The discussion has shown that apart from press releases and fist-party sources there is insufficient reliable material by uninvolved sources to establish notability. Attempts to improve the article by adding more sources have only resulted in more unreliable references that are connected to the subject. Based on the sockpuppet investigation I am also ignoring any votes / remarks in this discussion made by the accounts listed there. While currently not being promotional, the article has still not been significantly improved since Articles for deletion/SolidCAM (2nd nomination) was closed as delete in February 2012. De728631 (talk) 16:08, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Solidcam

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Promotional article with "puffery" for citations. I can't see how notability has been established  Brookie :) { - he's in the building somewhere!}  (Whisper...) 12:29, 2 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Brooke, what citiation did you find puffery? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sentineldk (talk • contribs) 12:31, 2 October 2012 (UTC)


 * The references seem to be in trade magazines plugging stuff; one of the references is a video of a machine working! I have removed several that merely linked to company's own promotional website!  Brookie :) { - he's in the building somewhere!}  (Whisper...) 12:38, 2 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Also, what is promotional about this article? Everything inside it is a fact... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sentineldk (talk • contribs) 12:34, 2 October 2012 (UTC)


 * You don't know this magazines, so you assume it's a commercial. Is CNN also a commerical? Before you write things here, do some research. I don't know if you noticed, but this is a software for machines. So putting a link to a video that shows a machine is in place. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sentineldk (talk • contribs) 12:42, 2 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete - pure promo-spam. I could not find any significant coverage by reliable sources to verify notability. Does not even come close to meeting WP:CORPDEPTH as far as I can see. A couple of the products have received some coverage in industry magazines but it's mostly promotion-type coverage rather than journalistic analysis. Anyway, coverage of the products is irrelevant because the company doesn't inherit notability from its products and this article is about the company (but don't go creating pages for the products - I don't think they are notable either). You can put all of those "references" into an External Links section - they are not invalid, nor are they inaccurate. But they couldn't really be considered "coverage" of the company. This article, for example, would be considered coverage of the company... if it was the same SolidCAM. It's not - it's a different company with the same name. Find some significant coverage in reliable sorces and it will be a different story. Also, have a read of WP:BURDEN and you might realise how laughable telling someone else to "do some research" really is. Stalwart 111  (talk) 03:12, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I cleaned up the article for you just in case this was a WP:FIXTHEPROBLEM problem. It wasn't. The sources still only give "coverage" (if you can call it that) to the products, not the company itself. I removed most of the link-spam and left you with the ones that might actually constitute reliable sources, just in case you were able to build on them. Stalwart 111  (talk) 03:34, 3 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep - The CAM business is not popular in the consumer market as it is a factory business product, it's not a software you can pick from the shelf. However I was able to find a review from an independent website SolidCAM Xpress review --PeteRoy (talk) 09:01, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
 * That's actually not a bad source but we do need "multiple sources" and we're not there yet with just that one. Stalwart 111  (talk) 12:36, 5 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep - SolidCAM is a software that in the CAM business for 27 years and is sold in a reseller network of more than 120 resellers over the world.sentineldk (talk)
 * Also I changed the article to focus on the product "SolidCAM" and not the article "SolidCAM". I currently have 7 reliable references and to my opinion it's enough. I visited other values and they have also as much. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sentineldk (talk • contribs) 16:06, 5 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep - I myself benefited today from this article because I was searching for a CAM product that integrates in SolidWorks. This article is also written well in comparison to others that software articles that I saw. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.219.14.180 (talk) 16:09, 5 October 2012 (UTC)  — 62.219.14.180 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 18:27, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 18:27, 3 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete per Stalwart111. Dori ☾Talk ☯ Contribs☽ 22:40, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:CORPDEPTH: indeed while the products might be notable (I didn't assess them, as they are not the topic of the article), the company definitely isn't. In fact it is another, undistinguishable software developer with nothing to say about it (apart from corporate trivia, which is not an encyclopaedic kind of coverage). — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 20:33, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I changed the value to focus on the "Software" and not the "Company" — Preceding GabbassMo (talk) 16:06, 8 October 2012 (UTC)ignatures|unsigned]] comment added by Sentineldk (talk • contribs) 09:04, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
 * You have, so WP:CORPDEPTH may not really be relevant now. That's fine, but you should have a look at Notability (software). It's an essay, not a guideline, but gives a good indication of what the wider Wikipedia community would expect to see to consider a piece of software to be notable. In my view, it would still struggle to meet those criteria. The sources need to demonstrate the significance of the software, rather than providing just a run-down of what it does. Again, not a guideline like WP:GNG, but more of an indication of what would be needed to build a consensus. Stalwart 111  (talk) 01:37, 8 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep I see nothing "promotional" in any of the content.  I gained the information I was looking for (nothing more, nothing less) when I went to Wiki and searched Solidcam.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by MachineHead50 (talk • contribs) 13:26, 8 October 2012 (UTC)  — MachineHead50 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * Keep The content on this entry is not promotional in any way. CAM is a vitally important segment of the manufacturing market and is not paid much attention to in larger circles. I found this entry while searching for CAM online and was glad to find information I needed to know which is the point of entries such as this.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Manerjl (talk • contribs) 13:39, 8 October 2012 (UTC)  — Manerjl (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * Keep Others(smaller) CAM software have a value as well, and solidcam is actually quite a popular one. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mikemessa (talk • contribs) 14:55, 8 October 2012 (UTC)  — Mikemessa (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * Keep The CAM market is constantly changing and information like this helps us decide what is currently available. When I saw it was up for deletion, I wondered which of their competitors was responsible.  Is that possible in Wiki?  I thought it was known for unbiased information.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shaunwiki2000 (talk • contribs) 15:05, 8 October 2012 (UTC)  — Shaunwiki2000 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

*Keep In comparison to software of the same type this page exhibits adequate information. It describe the purpose of the software and provides references to further research of the topic.GabbassMo (talk) 16:06, 8 October 2012 (UTC) — GabbassMo (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * Wow - please note, each of the above 5 comments are not only from single purpose accounts but are from single contribution accounts. Each "joined", made a single edit in this obscure AFD voting "Keep" and promptly disappeared. Needless to say I will be opening an SPI. I think we can effectively strike-through each of the above as contributions from sock-puppets. Stalwart 111  (talk) 22:25, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Further; Sockpuppet investigations/Sentineldk. Stalwart 111  (talk) 22:48, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
 * If people know the product, why can't they make a contribution? I checked all of Wikipedia policies and right now I don't see any objective reason to block the value. Correct me if i'm wrong. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.179.150.34 (talk) 06:46, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
 * People can make a contribution - I'm suggesting all of the above are the same person. Sock-puppetry will get you blocked and the quacking here is obvious. Stalwart 111  (talk) 13:05, 9 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep SolidCAM is one of the leading developers in CAM-business, there should stay informations about it in the world's largest encyclopedia for sure. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RoyDick (talk • contribs) 07:17, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
 * -This looks another sockpuppet 1 edit user!  Brookie :) { - he's in the building somewhere!}  (Whisper...) 08:37, 9 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete - It looks like it is just for promotion. Also, I thought it was weird when I saw those 5 editors that had no edits. ~ihaveamac (talk) 08:41, 9 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Sorry, but I don't understand  - Why is this value up for deletion? I changed the value to be about the software. I have 7 references in the value to neutral websites. SolidCAM has 1,700,000 search results in Google. Is one of my references not neutral enough? Is it not enough references? I have visited the solidworks value, and it has the same amount of references. Currently, what's promotional about the article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.179.150.34 (talk) 10:34, 9 October 2012 (UTC)


 * This IP user seems to have a connection/history with the subject too - see User talk:212.179.150.34. Is this Sentineldk's IP address, or one of them?  Brookie :)  { - he's in the building somewhere!}  (Whisper...) 10:49, 9 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Agree entirely - both have been added to the SPI. Stalwart 111  (talk) 13:05, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
 * You can go ahead and check, no problem. But is this talk page about me or about the value? I think you guys are forgetting the target of Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.179.150.34 (talk) 13:12, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
 * This is a discussion designed to build a consensus which becomes difficult when one person dishonestly provides their opinion more than once using multiple usernames. It is considered a serious breach of community trust - the note at the top of your page each time you edit here says as much. It also makes the company you "represent" look bad - that its representatives and supporters had to be dishonest and break the rules in an attempt to have the company's article kept. If you want to make a good argument for keeping the article, demonstrate how it complies with policies. Aside from the breach of rules, none of the keep arguments above actually cite any policies - they are all basically WP:ILIKEIT arguments and so don't carry much weight at all. Stalwart 111  (talk) 14:12, 9 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Note - the same company had an article nominated for deletion in 2007 - Articles for deletion/SolidCAM - which concluded no-consensus. But some of the SPAs (fairly obviously, now, socks) voted there, and happened to come back just to vote at this AFD. They will be added to the SPI. So it looks like every single one of the Keep votes above is actually from the same person / company. Incredible. Stalwart 111  (talk) 14:25, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
 * The conclusion was NOT to delete, that's the bottom line. Until you prove this "SPI" claim, please stop mentioning it. You guys are putting allot of energy into this debate, and I respect that. But why do you think the value should be deleted? I don't see any concrete proof that this value should be deleted. Correct me if i'm wrong. User: Sentineldk —Preceding undated comment added 14:36, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Actually, no. The standard burden of proof means you have to verify the content you add before you add it and the subject must meet notability guidelines. It is up to you to verify that it does - something you have so far failed to do. There is no "value" if you haven't verified the content - it's just an advertisement for your company, now for your product. It doesn't come close to meeting guidelines and you know it (have known it for about 5 years I'd say and nothing has changed) - thus the sock-puppetry. Stalwart 111  (talk) 14:48, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
 * How can I prove notability, if not references? Are you saying my references are not good enough? If yes, what is the problem with them? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sentineldk (talk • contribs) 14:54, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I, and others, have explained this above and elsewhere. You should have a look at WP:RS - few of the current "sources" would be considered reliable. Maybe the ones from MMS would be okay but for WP:N they are considered one source, so would not comply with the requirement for "multiple" sources. You need "significant coverage" in things like major newspapers, scholarly articles/papers, books, etc. A promotional write-up from a trade partner is neither reliable, nor independent. The specific criteria for software (mentioned above, though again not policy) also need to be considered given it likely doesn't pass any of those either. Stalwart 111  (talk) 15:08, 9 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep - They are not just one of the fastest growing companies but also a leader in technology. iMachining (a technology developed by SolidCAM) is a paradigm shift in the manufacturing world.  This is certainly note worthy especially to the wikipedia user.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mikay19 (talk • contribs) 16:03, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
 * On cue, another brand new single-contribution account. LOL. This is just getting silly. The article isn't even about the company now - it's about one product by the same name. So the suggestion someone "new" would come here to make an "old" argument is laughable. Stalwart 111  (talk) 20:28, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't understand, are "single-contribution" accounts not allowed to post here? If they are allowed to post, why are you mocking them? The way you are acting regarding this has become very childish and personal. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.179.150.34 (talk) 06:38, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Of course they can but legitimate new users are unlikely to make a "random" AFD their first, let alone only, contribution to Wikipedia. It's usually a good sign they are actually someone else pretending to be a "new user" to skew a consensus in their direction - vote-stacking with sock-puppets. It's a tactic so common and so old that it is noted above every edit window at AFD as a warning to users old and new. Thinking the tactic is new and "clever" is the only part that could be considered mockery. It is even less clever when each shows up, says basically the same thing and then never comes back to answer questions or support their claims. It's all classic COI sock-puppetry that regular editors have seen over and over and over again. Stalwart 111  (talk) 07:47, 10 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete - The only notable thing I could find is that there are ten times more press releases on Solidcam than, uh, "Keep" iVotes in this AfD. The oldest press release was from October 16, 1997. The topic does not meet WP:GNG. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 07:30, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
 * What do you mean by "press releases"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.179.150.34 (talk) 08:04, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Simply not true. See http://news.thomasnet.com/companystory/SolidCAM-Cements-Its-Long-Term-Relationship-with-Iscar-with-iMachining-TM-605024 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sentineldk (talk • contribs) 08:22, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
 * That's a press release - it even says "Press release date" at the top. Stalwart 111  (talk) 08:30, 10 October 2012 (UTC)


 * This page is helping me improve the article - I added 5 more references to "neutral" sources that talk about the product. Currently I have in the article 12 references. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sentineldk (talk • contribs) 08:36, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Most of those are much the same - the press releases Uzma was talking about. Some even say "press release" or "for immidiate release". Sorry, but they would certainly not be considered reliable sources. Stalwart 111  (talk) 08:41, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Can you explain what reference is not reliable and why? I understand the comment, but it's too general. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sentineldk (talk • contribs) 08:44, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
 * If it says "press release" at the top then it obviously came from the company so is not from an "independent source" which it needs to be to be considered reliable. Anything which is basically just re-hashing an announcement from the company couldn't be considered reliable. You need to read WP:RS. Link-spamming more press releases into the article doesn't help it meet WP:GNG. Show us articles in The Daily Mail or the Chicago Tribune or a well-respected industry publication or scholarly paper. You need to demonstrate that respected people outside the company have been prompted to write about the company or its products - not just passing mentions but significant coverage. Re-printing the company's press releases does not count. Stalwart 111  (talk) 08:56, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Refrences 1 and 4 are to Modern Machine Shop, which is the magazine and online website with the widest circulation to the metalworking industry (97,000 + Subscribers, 73000+ Monthly Visitors),References 6 and 7 are to CIMdata, the iIndependent global leader in PLM consulting — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.179.150.34 (talk) 09:32, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
 * As I said to you on the article's talk page, the MMS ones are probably the sources closest to being considered reliable, but this needs to be demonstrated and the associated WP:BIGNUMBER doesn't really help. Besides which, sources from the same source are considered one source for the purposes of WP:GNG and we still need multiple sources. CIM is a commercial consultancy - their newsletter "news" items would not have the same editorial standards or reliability as a newspaper or magazine. I wouldn't be relying on them for notability. Stalwart 111  (talk) 10:01, 10 October 2012 (UTC)Here's one from MMS. It's by Alan Christman. Wait a minute! Alan Christman isn't a reporter for MMS. My version of the "news" article says Author Affiliation: Alan Christman, Chairman, CIMdata, Inc., 3909 Research Park Avenue, Ann Arbor, Ml 48108, E-mail: xxx@cimdata.com. Appears to me that CIMdata was hired by the Solidcam company to consult/manage the Solidcam product lifecycle marketing, including writing stories and having them published in Modern Machine Shop. Essentially, the MMS article is another press release or at least not independent of the topic as required by WP:GNG. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 13:06, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Well there you go - that pretty much rules that one out too. Stalwart 111  (talk) 13:27, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Ok I shall remove these soft fluffy non-ref's one more time !  Brookie :)  { - he's in the building somewhere!}  (Whisper...) 13:35, 10 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Is it legal to go ahead and delete references? - The user "brookie" delete 10 references of mine, and did not even write why. This is a joke. This guy has something personal against the company. I am putting back the references, and I dare anyone to delete them without proving why they should be deleted.


 * See the comments in the page history for each item - specific comments were made for each. Please don't make threats - this is not how we do things. Please read the above comments before re-adding the questionable "references" - these are not reliable sources.  Brookie :) { - he's in the building somewhere!}  (Whisper...) 10:16, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Sorry mate, you can't go ahead and delete stuff. If you think a reference is not reliable, let's discuss it in the talk page. I am sorry about the threat, but what you did is just not professional. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sentineldk (talk • contribs) 10:23, 10 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Actually, he is allowed (encouraged, in fact) to be bold and delete unreliable material. I would suggest it actually helps your cause to have the unreliable ones removed so you can spend some time finding some good ones. Stalwart 111  (talk) 10:28, 10 October 2012 (UTC)


 * I know he is allowed, everyone is allowed to do everything around here. But there is one talk page, and I think that his claims should be made here. He deleted one of my references to CIMdata, but did not prove that it's not a reliable source. He deleted one of my refrences to SolidWorks website, but it is only natural to put references in the article to SolidWorks website, which is the biggest CAD vendor in the world and has a value in Wikipedia. I can prove to you one by one why each reference is completely reliable and 100% bullet proof. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sentineldk (talk • contribs) 10:37, 10 October 2012 (UTC)


 * I would contend you can't because they aren't. Press releases from the company are not reliable sources for verifying the notability of that company. Plain and simple. This whole thing really goes to show why WP:OWN exists and why COI editing is strongly discouraged. If the company was notable enough to warrant an article, an uninvolved editor would likely have been prompted by significant coverage to start one. The fact that the company has to create one for itself as a WP:PROMO, then encourage "friends" to support its retention rather than supplying reliable refs is usually a pretty good indication that something might not be notable. There are exceptions but I don't think this is one of them. Stalwart 111  (talk) 10:47, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Only 3 of my references point to press releases, but I still think they are good ones. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sentineldk (talk • contribs) 10:53, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I would expect you to think they are "good" even if they aren't reliable - your company wrote them. That's the whole point of my previous comment. Stalwart 111  (talk) 11:36, 10 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Fine then, I will add more newspapers articles. Expect them tomorrow.
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:01, 10 October 2012 (UTC)




 * Sorry for asking again, but why do you consider refrences from CIMdata to be not reliable? Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sentineldk (talk • contribs) 07:23, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I reviewed the references again, and deleted 2 of them. Also I added one more reference to an article in Develop3D.com


 * I added 1 more reference, to an article in gfxspeak.com

Can we score through the identified meatpuppets and sockpuppets? This will make the voting clearer.  Brookie :) { - he's in the building somewhere!}  (Whisper...) 08:23, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
 * 20 Mule-Team Delete: What in the hell; why was this relisted? There are six Delete proponents, and with only one exception, every single Keep proponent is a SPA.  Consensus was long since reached.  The arguments of the Delete proponents is quite persuasive - these "sources" are long on blogs, self-promotions, and obscure websites, and very short on mainstream media - and this AfD should be closed at once.   Ravenswing   09:40, 11 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Try to be more specific when you write things. We currently don't have even one source in the article that refers to a "blog" or anything else in this sort. If you believe i'm wrong, please prove what reference is not reliable. Also, from what I see, each keep vote is legit. You can say that if the person has less contributes then the vote weighs less, but you cannot completely disregard it. Correct me if I am wrong, and please write things that can be proved.


 * This is just getting silly - several people have explained the major issues with the "references" you added and you have continued to revert their deletion and add even more unreliable sources. It is not up to others to "prove" the subject is not notable - as the original author you are required to comply with the standard burden of proof, which means you have to verify notability and the content you add. Other editors who come here to AFD are ostensibly required to give an opinion as to whether or not you have met that burden. If the majority (WP:CONSENSUS) say you haven't, you need to convince them. That's the whole point of AFD. Demanding that people prove you wrong helps your cause not at all. The very obvious sock-puppetry (at your instigation or not) should be considered an embarassment to your company - you put no effort into making persuasive arguments and instead are trying to rely on the "votes" of obviously dodgy WP:SPAs while refusing to engage productively.
 * Wikipedia is not a democracy - the number of votes counts not at all (now we tell you!) - decisions are made on the merit of arguments, community consensus and compliance with policy. Seeing as though most of your arguments amount to "I like it" and you continue to refuse to provide references (despite the obvious consensus that the current ones aren't any good) your arguments are unlikely to be given much weight at all. As above - you have brought this on yourself. Stalwart 111  (talk) 10:55, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for taking the time to answer. I agree with you, my references were not reliable in the first place. But now I did a little cleaning and I think it's much better, — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.179.150.34 (talk) 15:38, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
 * With respect, I strongly disagree. You added another press release (re-added it after someone else justifiably / helpfully removed it) and a link to an online magazine without any reference to a particular story / article. Besides which, that reference is footnoted for a particular module supported by the software, not the software itself. Unless you can demonstrate that it gives "significant coverage" to either the company or its software, it really isn't of much value for the purposes of WP:GNG. Stalwart 111  (talk) 22:34, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Actually, since IP 212.179.150.34 is registered to Solidcam LTD, I'd flag any edit the anon made on the subject as a strong COI violation.   Ravenswing   23:02, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, User:Sentineldk and IP: 212.179.150.34 are clearly the same person - they edit alternately above in the first person - sometimes logged in, sometimes not. The IP is registered to the company and the User has declared an interest on the article talk page. In addition, at least one other "friend" has admitted to being canvassed by Sentineldk to come here to "vote" in support of the company. Pretty embarrassing for the company, really, but this has already been pointed out. At this point we're basically just handing out WP:ROPE to anyone who would like some. Stalwart 111  (talk) 23:46, 11 October 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.