D-Cubed – Yes, your sandbox would be a good start or I could put the deleted article in your userspace to work on. Feel free to continue the discussion on my talkpage. – SpartazHumbug! 05:27, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
User has requested review of the AfD discussion outcome. --Shirt58 (talk) 12:30, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse- consensus to delete was established at the AfD. Can you give us a reason why this should be overturned? ReykYO! 01:32, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Clarification: My apologies for not linking this discussion on the deleting admin's talk page. It gives details of MingleLane's arguments for undeletion. --Shirt58 (talk) 09:46, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note - the discussion in the admin's talk page has since been archived. See [1]. -- Whpq (talk) 18:22, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
temporarily restored for discussion at Deletion Review DGG ( talk ) 19:34, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - MingleLane, Siemens is such a large company that I do not think you can find enough Wikpedia reliable source material on Siemens' D-Cubed 3D component software products to justify a stand-alone article under the WP:SUMMARY requirements, particularly since D-Cubed is not even mentioned in Wikipedia's Siemens article and the D-Cubed software is used as a subcomponent of other software that would receive the news coverage. However, information on D-Cubed Ltd. of Cambridge, England goes back to at least February 1990.[2] Rather than writing an article having the D-Cubed technology or D-Cubed components as the main topic, I think you can get the D-Cubed components information into a Wikipedia article having the D-Cubed (company) as the main topic. When D-Cubed was acquired by UFS in 2004, it still retained an identity as UGS' D-Cubed subsidiary. When UGS was acquired by Siemens in May 2007, I did not find any mention of D-Cubed. An approach you may want to take is to write a Wikipedia article D-Cubed Ltd's 1990 to 2007 history, add info about the D-Cubed technology through 2007, and note at the end of the article something along the lines that the D-Cubed technology now reside with Siemens, where it continues to be developed and licensed under the D-Cubed trademark.[3] -- Jreferee (talk) 14:04, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks everyone. I am not so much asking for a deletion review as trying to understand the community's criteria for acceptable references (I have read the guidelines). I have found more references, and I found Jreferee's advice to be insightful. Is there a way to perhaps draft a new version of the article, but without publication, and then obtain feedback on the content and its references? If so, is my sandbox the place for this? If the new version still isn't up to scratch, that would be fine with me, and I would have learned a lot in the process. MingleLane (talk) 16:53, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse by default, per lack of reasoning. Trying to learn more about Wikipedia is admirable, but this isn't a request to change the deletion outcome, and no argument has been brought forth that the situation has changed substantially since the 6th. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 01:03, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
