Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Basic Concepts of Engineering Drawing

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. Wifione ^Message 11:21, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Basic Concepts of Engineering Drawing

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

Original research, completely unsourced, unencyclopedic, promotion, fails GNG, no media coverage... Alex^{discussion ★} 08:45, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 08:58, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 08:59, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not disputing the AfD, but why does being uncensored have anything to do with it? --Colapeninsula (talk) 10:37, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry I actually meant unsourced (but my grammar check proposed uncensored as a correct and I didn't notice it). Alex^{discussion ★} 18:35, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as not notable. But I agree that the other grounds for deletion are misconceived. This is said to be a learning tool - by definition all such things should be original works whether books or computer programs, and since it is open source with no link it can hardly be said to be excessively promotional. Without independent reviews and/or evidence that others are using it it the topic fails, though, to get to first base for consideration as being notable. --AJHingston (talk) 12:43, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SarahStierch (talk) 01:26, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- Lacks independent RS references and, though the generic name makes a search relatively ineffective, a search did not reveal any significant coverage. It is unclear whether this is software, an educational curriculum, or something else - regardless of the format, this subject is not sufficiently notable for inclusion.Dialectric (talk) 21:34, 30 November 2013 (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.