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 speedy keep. WP:SKCRIT#1 - withdrawn by nominator (non-admin closure) Galobtter (pingó mió) 08:25, 20 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

OrCAD (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)

Good faith search finds no significant independent third-party coverage in reliable sources. Nearly 100% of the articles in news sites or journals that cover this product are just reprints of press releases. ^Bongo_matic 02:11, 20 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Withdrawn by nominator. This product is the subject of several full-length. While whether these books are actually independent of the vendor of the project is dubious, the fact that they are sold by third parties would seem a good reason to withdraw the nomination in any case. ^Bongo_matic 07:27, 20 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:39, 20 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:39, 20 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Obvious keep. A misnomination per WP:BEFORE. The quality of the article in the current shape can certainly be improved (it has many gaps of information which need to be filled and various loose ends fixed, in particular after a huge section discussing parts of the company history has been deleted recently without consent after it has been a stable part of the article for half a decade). However, that doesn't even sligthly affect the notability of the topic OrCAD "as is", which has been one of the truely professional and traditional EDA CAD tools for decades. As an encyclopedia, we obviously need an article about it - actually, the question is more, if one article is sufficient or if we should have separate articles about the company and products like OrCAD or PSpice. (At the present stage, I would prefer one combined article with sections split out when enough stuff has accumulated, but others seem to prefer to split out an article about the company even now.) --Matthiaspaul (talk) 06:23, 20 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep - given the information that has come to light. The nom. should themselves possibly consider to do a speedy keep close.Djm-leighpark (talk) 08:18, 20 October 2018 (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.