Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/XTrackCAD


 * 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. Black Kite (talk) 22:23, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

XTrackCAD

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Does not meet WP:NSOFT. No evidence of notability by reliable third party sources. Relies almost entirely on primary and self-published sources. Dollywares (talk) 12:30, 28 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep This software meet WP:NSOFT because:
 * XTrackCAD is the subject of multiple printed third-party manuals, instruction books, or reliable reviews, written by independent authors and published by independent publishers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Appsoft4 (talk • contribs) 22:06, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
 * XTrackCAD has been recognized as having historical or technical significance by reliable sources.

Appsoft4 (talk) 21:56, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
 * How do you figure building-your-model-railroad.com to be an independent reliable source with editorial oversight? CHRISSY MAD  ❯❯❯  ¯\_(ツ)_/¯  16:23, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
 * So, if building-your-model-railroad.com is (in your opinion) only one bad reference in this list, then it replaced now by adding better sources. Appsoft4 (talk) 21:56, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Most of these sources are not reliable, several are forums and otherwise non-published, non-rs sources. CHRISSY MAD  ❯❯❯  ¯\_(ツ)_/¯  22:00, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions.  MT Train Talk 03:19, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment I have put the list in a collapse because it was kind of intrusive to people reading the discussion. &#91;Username Needed&#93; 10:18, 29 March 2018 (UTC)


 *  Delete Neutral. I've looked at the refs above and they are a mixture of unreliable, trivial, blog etc. If someone wants to list the best 3 or 4 refs I will have another look. Szzuk (talk) 18:56, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment: I just add more better references in the top of List of references above (try look on new entries listed from 1 to 5). Also soon I will add more references to other publications) Appsoft4 (talk) 10:24, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I will go to neutral. Szzuk (talk) 11:39, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment: Struck second "Keep" vote by same user. Jon Kolbert (talk) 18:05, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment: No need struck, just remove doubled vote. Appsoft4 (talk) 15:47, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment: The "additional" references are either primary sources or self published. Of the other non-primary sources, most simply mention the existence of the software. There are still no reliable, third party sources written by independent authors and published by independent publishers. Notability, not existence, must be established by such citations without synthesis of published material. Dollywares (talk) 12:26, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J04n(talk page) 15:25, 5 April 2018 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Delete. This looks like a niche piece of software with no significance outside of the very small (model railroading) community.  The new sources supplied by  are insufficient to meet WP:NSOFT.  -- RoySmith (talk) 13:06, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein   06:25, 15 April 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.