Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Madcap (software)

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. Randykitty (talk) 14:21, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Madcap (software)[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This is charmingly specific (note it's only for fluid milk! :) and the software is clearly a known quantity in the industry [1], but unsurprisingly the wider world appears not to have taken much notice of it so far. Primary and almost-primary sources seem to be the only ones, plus the odd passing mention (see the thesis above). Not sure if it's worth merging to New Zealand Dairy Board? -- Elmidae (talk · contribs) 13:00, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Elmidae (talk · contribs) 13:00, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:17, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Would it help strengthen the credentials of the software if information was included about it being used in over 24 countries to manage the collection of milk from over 200,000 farms by the largest food and beverage company in the world, Nestle? They refer to it as their "Global Milk Solution" which is MADCAP.

Also, there is other software in the dairy supply chain space, such as Ever.Ag and Milk Moovement that could be included to be more inclusive about this particular dairy software niche.

One issue I have with citations is that the software originates from 1974, so there are not many external internet sources to verify some of the history. Any suggestions for how to handle this?

Let me know what else is required to substantiate the significance of the software and prevent deletion. Z4nath (talk) 21:07, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Z4nath: sorry, didn't see this. - Genuine lack of coverage is frequently something that just cannot be overcome. Since we only collate existing coverage, if that doesn't exist to a sufficient degree, then we are stumped as far as writing a standalone article is concernced. Specialist software often suffers from that. However, I think there might be more mileage in covering the various software solutions in context at an existing page (notability concerns do not apply when something is treated as a subtopic within an article). For example, Dairy farming#Supply management could well take a subsection on management software. Grotesquely, that subsection currently concerns itself exclusively with Canada - no idea how that happened - so it could use an overhaul anyway. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 16:19, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your response @Elmidae Great suggestions! I'll look further into this avenue and see if that will work. 203.109.150.9 (talk) 04:04, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, $Salvio giuliano$ 13:49, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

comment what is clearly missing here are reliable, independent sources that attribute to the importance of the software. So far I count 3 sources tied to the company and one source tied to JADE, the platform used to build the software which seems semi-independent to me (they have a financial incentive to hype projects built on their platform). --hroest 15:15, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - If the page is kept, some effort at linking should be made. The only current inbound links are two redirects and a bunch of user pages. I'm not sure if that meets the formal definition of an orphan page, but if not then it's close. Moonreach (talk) 16:10, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not much mention in any sort of RS that discusses it at length. Could perhaps be a merge to the NZ Dairy Board article. Oaktree b (talk) 16:50, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Is Contec Group International notable enough for this to be turned into an article about that, rather than merging to New Zealand Dairy Board? Nurg (talk) 00:34, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no evidence notability requirements are met. If kept, copyedit needed, not least to change to sentence case. Stifle (talk) 10:32, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Nothing is sourced, no one has been able to find sources. No objection to a merge if someone can find an Ind RS. // Timothy :: talk 12:07, 15 March 2023 (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.