Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cadwork
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 keep. (non-admin closure) Tim Song (talk) 23:58, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Cadwork (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
A non-notable CAD package. Wizard191 (talk) 14:19, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, weakly; while the article isn't very good, software created in 1980 and still in use has a fairly strong claim to actual notability; and this package even has some books hits that appear to be relevant. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 16:43, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:49, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. But please find some 3rd party sources too. LotLE×talk 19:24, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Not terribly notable but keep nontheless. I have a feeling reliable sources exist but nobody can be bothered locating them because a CAD product for the timber industry isn't terribly sexy. Szzuk (talk) 20:13, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: Per [1], [2], and the snippet views on the search results above. Joe Chill (talk) 21:48, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Joe, what are you getting from that book search? I have the feeling what you and I are seeing must be very different. I am withholding my delete !vote until hear back from you, but as of right now I see no indicators of notability. JBsupreme (talk) 22:19, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- From the snippet views, it looks like the books have significant coverage of the software. I'm surprised that me and Smerdis actually agree on something. Joe Chill (talk) 22:35, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not getting any such indicator from the snippet views that I can see. :-/ JBsupreme (talk) 00:30, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The 2nd book [3] appears to have an entire chapter about it. Pcap ping 06:45, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Well you both are obviously seeing something I do not see, so I'll just abstain from this one. I get a small snip of the page and "Where's the rest of this book?" at the bottom. Do you two participate in the Google Books Partner Program [4] or something? Maybe that is why you're seeing additional content. JBsupreme (talk) 07:26, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- We see the same thing as you. Snippet views can give you a very good guess as to their content if you study them. For instance, the second link has a big 11 for chapter 11 on cadwork and the parts of the snippet view have pages 375, 378, and 384 which all say cadwork at the top of the page which many books do in chapters. This source is all about cadwork which you can tell from the title. The sentence on cadwork in this source shows that there is more coverage with it especially because the software has to do with the timber industry and the title of the book is "Proceedings of the 1991 International Timber Engineering Conference". You can tell from the short snippet in this source that the information about cadwork continues for a while. Joe Chill (talk) 22:49, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Well you both are obviously seeing something I do not see, so I'll just abstain from this one. I get a small snip of the page and "Where's the rest of this book?" at the bottom. Do you two participate in the Google Books Partner Program [4] or something? Maybe that is why you're seeing additional content. JBsupreme (talk) 07:26, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The 2nd book [3] appears to have an entire chapter about it. Pcap ping 06:45, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not getting any such indicator from the snippet views that I can see. :-/ JBsupreme (talk) 00:30, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- From the snippet views, it looks like the books have significant coverage of the software. I'm surprised that me and Smerdis actually agree on something. Joe Chill (talk) 22:35, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Joe, what are you getting from that book search? I have the feeling what you and I are seeing must be very different. I am withholding my delete !vote until hear back from you, but as of right now I see no indicators of notability. JBsupreme (talk) 22:19, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Also gets a bunch of gscholar hits. One of them descibes it as "Cadwork, standard software for timber construction". Also has a paragraph in this survey paper, on par with Autocad (pretty much with the same description of focus as the other paper). I found a tutorial paper for the letter of GNG too. Pcap ping 07:19, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Abstain. I cannot view the sources directly, but I see that this article is going to be kept anyhow. If someone can somehow manage full access to the articles found and cite them accordingly the article would be in much better position to resist a future nomination. JBsupreme (talk) 23:11, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- 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.