Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/IntelliCAD

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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 no consensus (kept by default). I ask editors that state that sources are easy to find to add some, please. (see also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/IntelliCAD Technology Consortium) - Nabla (talk) 02:00, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] IntelliCAD

IntelliCAD (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View log)

Contested prod. Borders on spam. Open-source software with no assertion of notability. Delete. Blanchardb-Me•MyEars•MyMouth-timed 07:39, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

  • Keep - Not spam, slightly notable software. Needs a lot of work. Regards, CycloneNimrodTalk? 17:00, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep I don't know enough about the software but amidst the press releases and new release announcement, there appears to be some RS coverage including: Computer Business Review, Cadalyst as well as others. It also appears to be covered in a number of journal articles. I don't know enough about the software and a lot of it is behind pay gates, but I think the article can be cleaned up by someone more familiar with the industry/tool. TravellingCarithe Busy Bee 17:15, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 17:25, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete - I originally marked this article for speedy deletion shortly after its creation. To this date it still somewhat borders on spam/promotion. It doesn't really explain its significance or notability especially due to the lack of verifiable references. Ejay (talk) 03:55, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Merge and redirect. As written, reads like an advertisement. There is already an article on IntelliCAD Technology Consortium. 69.140.152.55 (talk) 05:09, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Reduce and merge as advised by 69.140.152.55. Strip down to the lead paragraph; lists of features do not belong. Over a million google hits, but time is needed to pick through the press releases and affiliated sites for something juicy for WP:N. Marasmusine (talk) 08:57, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete if the software was notable surely it would have some coverage by third party sources, somewhere, anywhere. Coccyx Bloccyx (talk) 17:42, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep Merge - as per 68.140.152.55. google news seems to show enough reviews to qualify as being notable, and there are a lot of other hits on it on google. I'm really not sure which should be the main article though, I could see the merge going either way. Both articles need better references. Wrs1864 (talk) 14:02, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
    • With the other article up for an AfD, I've pondered. I think this one should be kept, I'm not at all sure whether the "org" article can qualify. Wrs1864 (talk) 22:02, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
  • NOTE Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/IntelliCAD Technology Consortium, may be that a merge will end up a delete, if that's not the desired outcome then a merge would need to be re-evaluated TravellingCarithe Busy Bee 21:18, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep, no problems finding multiple, reliable third-party sources on this product. Irrelevant for the AfD, the article should be rewritten, but it is not close to being spam. Arsenikk (talk) 11:14, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete per Ejay, it's a spam/promotion article. Notice the link at the bottom offering the reader to buy the product.⇨ EconomistBR ⇦ Talk 06:19, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep, Needs cleaning up but is notable enough. Dimitrii (talk) 19:31, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep – This article needs some cleanup and references added, but a search on Google Scholar indicates enough publications referencing this software to make it notable. — λ (talk) 23:42, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep This article would need to get completely cleaned up and would need some reliable sources added, but is notable enough. Razorflame 01:27, 25 May 2008 (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.