You don't say that Martin Hogbin turned attention of Wisard191 to following: <<... to write a whole article based on one source is not entirely within the spirit of WP. I agree that it would be better to have a greater range of sources which is why, in the absence of anything better, the metal-art source might be acceptable, assuming it does actually confirm what is being said in the article>>. I want remind that the discussion has arisen as a result of gross action of Wisard191 to remove my insertion to the text of the article. My intention is to undo Wizard191's action, which removed my contribution. My goal is to contribute to the article section "History" the text:
"Since the advance of the PC era the manufacturing of complicated and unique forged items is usually accompanied by realistic 3D computer simulation. This accurate and relatively fast technology allows accumulate all needful knowledges, equipment and intermediates for the future forged items before the starting of manufacturing[i][ii]. Computer 3D modeling is now not scarcity even for small  companies[iii]."
i Forging Process Modeling. This footnote supports reality of using 3D computer simulation in forging.
ii On CAD/CAM hardware and software usable in forging. This footnote tells which tools are usable.
iii 3D modeling in forge. This footnote supports reality of using 3D modelling in small forging companies.
Andy Dingley is the only author who promises to undo my undoing of Wizard191's action . I don't see in his intention a common sense. I only see a passionate desire not to permit in the article my additional text with footnotes. I almost no doubt that he again and again will try to switch debate to the criticism of an external link. Meantime the article will be without the truthful text about the historical role of computer 3D simulation for modern forging.