Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Comparison of CAD editors for computer-aided engineering

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 merge to Comparison_of_CAD_editors_for_architecture,_engineering_and_construction_(AEC). Black Kite (t) (c) 20:19, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comparison of CAD editors for computer-aided engineering

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

There are no reliable sources asserting that this is a notable topic. The one reference just supports features for a given program. This just doesn't seem like an encyclopedia worthy topic. Wizard191 (talk) 12:13, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: See WP:NOTGUIDE and WP:NOTDIR. Cmcginni (talk) 16:15, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ Merge, per my comment below: Would definitely require verifiable sources and all, which can be found for this topic. However, I don't see why this article would be deleted, while articles such as Comparison of file archivers, Comparison of text editors, Comparison of web browsers, Comparison of raster graphics editors, etc. could all be kept. I know that's not much of an argument, but CAD software is by all means notable. What's required to show that a comparison article would be? Perhaps at the very least remove the "for computer-aided engineering" part of the title, so as to not narrow down the topic too much. — GorillaWarfare ^{talk-review me!} 18:06, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- So what if other stuff exists? This article must assert notability in and of itself. Wizard191 (talk) 19:08, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm aware -- I just wanted to point it out. As you'll see, I mentioned above that I know that showing that other stuff exists is not a valid argument. Because of that, I continued on to say that the article does assert notability. — GorillaWarfare ^{talk-review me!} 15:46, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:59, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:59, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep: seems like a notable subject, and somebody obviously put a lot of work into the chart, but we need reliable sources to verify the accuracy of the information therein. I have tagged the article for “rescue.” Bwrs (talk) 15:21, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but should probably be merged with Comparison of CAD editors for architecture, engineering and construction (AEC) (which lists several CAD/CAE programs and is better sourced). There are multiple CAD/CAE comparisons that can be found via even the most casual of google searches, suggesting that WP:BEFORE would have indicated notability was not a concern & the article could have been improved. Further, most products in this comparison stub have their own articles in Wikipedia already. Presumably, these articles are sources & assert notability. This comparison can be used as an aid to navigation to those other articles. --Karnesky (talk) 20:22, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - I didn't notice there was another comparison article on CAD editors. The merge idea is a good one. — GorillaWarfare ^{talk-review me!} 15:49, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Agree with Karnesky. List of notable things, and their notable easily confirmable stats, is fine for a Wikipedia article. Dream Focus 10:59, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete disagree with Dream Focus. one can clearly see that every single time Dream Focus edits in an AfD it is always delete. how can one trust him. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.183.74.29 (talk) 13:48, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Comparison of CAD editors for architecture, engineering and construction (AEC) per WP:CFORK. SnottyWong ^yak 18:12, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note that content has not yet been merged & a better name for the merge target might be simply Comparison of CAD editors (which redirects to the AEC page now), as there is no reason to specify CAE vs AEC at this time. --Karnesky (talk) 19:00, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with Karnesky above. — GorillaWarfare ^{talk-review me!} 13:22, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect reads like a guide rather than an encyclopedia article and this topic or comparison also seems to be original research. Nothing to WP:verifynotability of the comparison of CAD editors, and so inappropriate to have an article outside the main CAD editor article. Shooterwalker (talk) 06:24, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
keep and merge If there are notable CAD editors, then the comparison of them is an appropriate encyclopedia topic. (if one wishes to get over-literal, essentially every review of any of them will offer comparisons). But that's not necessary--it's an accepted type of summary article, just like lists. Merge under some suitable general heading, because that will be the most useful arrangment of the material DGG ( talk ) 10:07, 13 August 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.