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 to delete (non admin). Dihydrogen Monoxide (H₂O) 03:57, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

SolidCAM[edit]

SolidCAM (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

Does not even assert notability, seems to be blatant advertising. The creator of the article removed the ((db-spam)) template, and shortly after it being replaced, and after the creator was advised that it was the inappropriate for them to remove it and that they should use ((hangon)) instead, an IP suddenly removed it (which, incidentally, has only worked on this article). That's why I'm bringing it to AfD rather than requesting Speedy once again. It should also be noted that the creator of the page is User:DavidSomekh and the company was founded by Emil Somekh. Given the unusual last name, I find it hard to believe that there aren't WP:COI issues too.  — Timotab ^{Timothy (not Tim dagnabbit!)} 17:30, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, fails WP:CORP. While the company seems to have some significance in its market, almost all citations in Google News Archive are press releases or slightly-rewritten press releases, so writing an article from independent sources would be difficult. --Dhartung | Talk 17:48, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Agree with above --Childzy ¤ Talk 19:52, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. WP:Corp says there must be secondary sources, i just looked, and there are plenty. Operating 20:42, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Then add them to the page, or forever hold your peace. MarkBul 22:33, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I dont care enough to edit that page. I'm simply saying that the comment it fails wp:corp isn't true. Operating 23:27, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Wikipedia is a knowledge data base, and this value defintly contributes to this site. SolidCAM is one of the leading CAM softwares in the market and i'm sure alot of people are looking for this value daily. DavidSomekh 00:06, 2 September 2007 (UTC) — DavidSomekh (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
• Delete per nom and massive failure of WP:V. Bfigura ^(talk) 22:50, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. DavidSomekh has a single purpose account for SolidCAM, which is obviously not notable -Domthedude001 02:32, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. This is a real company that has been active for over 20 years, it should have a page in Wikipedia. PeteRoy 09:21, 23 September 2007 (UTC) — PeteRoy (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletions. -- Gavin Collins 11:07, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:CORP. Non-notable company. Keb25 11:29, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, borderline speedy G11/A7. Definitely fails WP:ORG; no independent, reliable secondary sources vouch for notability. Keep arguments so far provide no evidence of notability and appear to come from WP:SPA's. MastCell ^Talk 18:43, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not notable? give me a brake... You guys can at least check before you say things.
[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] [20] [21] —Preceding unsigned comment added by DavidSomekh (talk • contribs) 08:03, 26 September 2007 (UTC) DavidSomekh —Preceding signed but undated comment was added at 07:33, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Despite the WP:COI issue this software seems notable to me. I got Results 691 - 698 of about 265,000 for "SolidCAM " in google.[22] But obviously this article needs some sources to verify the content. --♪♫ ĽąĦĩŘǔ ♫♪ ^{walkie-talkie} 07:50, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete no sources to demonstrate notability.--Gavin Collins 23:00, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Did you see the 21 links above??? You guys have to be more proffesional when you say things. To go and say that a company is not notable is very easy. To prove it is another thing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.178.5.20 (talk • contribs)

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.