Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Solidcam
pure promo-spam. I could not find any significant coverage by |reliable sources to |verify |notability. Does not even come close to meeting  as far as I can see. A couple of the products have received some coverage in industry magazines but it's mostly promotion-type coverage rather than journalistic analysis. Anyway, coverage of the products is irrelevant because the company |doesn't inherit notability from its products and ''this'' article is about the company (but don't go creating pages for the products - I don't think they are notable either). You can put all of those "references" into an ''External Links'' section - they are not invalid, nor are they inaccurate. But they couldn't really be considered "coverage" of the company. http://www.thestar.co.uk/news/business/software-firm-targets-new-growth-1-4900515 This article, for example, would be considered coverage of the company... if it was the same SolidCAM. It's not - it's a different company with the same name. Find some significant coverage in reliable sorces and it will be a different story. Also, have a read of  and you might realise how laughable telling someone else to "do some research" really is
— [[User: Stalwart111|'''Stalwart111''']] [[User talk:Stalwart111|(talk)]], 03:12, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
Stance: delete
Cited policy: WP:RS||WP:V||WP:N||WP:CORPDEPTH||WP:INHERIT||WP:BURDEN (Wikipedia:Reliable sources)