Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/DraftSight

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. Unopposed.  Sandstein  18:03, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

DraftSight (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

I can't find any reliable sources covering this software. Sam Walton (talk) 21:08, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. sst✈ 04:00, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. sst✈ 04:00, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. sst✈ 04:31, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as none of this suggests a currently better notable article. SwisterTwister talk 06:24, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - the refs in article include what appears to be an independently published book on Draftsight, Shih, Randy H. (2012). Exploring DraftSight. SDC Publications. Do other editors have reasons for not counting this source towards notability? Dialectric (talk) 01:29, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Somehow totally overlooked that reference. Not sure on its reliability; can't find any discussions about the publisher on Wikipedia. The website implies that it's run by one person and anyone can write for them, providing they know what they're talking about. This leaves me unsure, though I'd still want to see more than that one textbook. Sam Walton (talk) 09:46, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete -the article relies too heavily on one source that doesn't seem to be reliable, let alone its lack of coverage elsewhere. The article itself isn't that well done as it's mostly just a lengthy bullet list. Burroughs'10 (talk) 04:50, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Here is a review of DraftSight in Cadalyst that looks promising as an RS. --Mark viking (talk) 10:09, 7 January 2016 (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.