Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Enhanced Machine Controller Source: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Enhanced_Machine_Controller

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 keep. -- Cirt (talk) 00:57, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Enhanced Machine Controller (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • AfD statistics)

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

An unremarkable software package. It has no third-party references to support notability. Borderline advert. Wizard191 (talk) 14:06, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Gee, your way off base here. This is an open source project and is a very remarkable software and is activity being developed —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.65.78.60 (talk) 14:22, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We believe we have over 3000 users worldwide using this software. It is hard to count, as many of them never contact us once they are up and running. I sell hardware that is supported by EMC2, and have sold close to 200 of these systems.

• Strong keep If you look at the history of this project, you will see that it is more than just a software application- it is a project that is similar to Gimp, Firefox, or any other large scale project with a lot of momentum going towards it's development. The community of developers and users behind it have learned to work together in a remarkable way, that promotes continuous improvement. The project also has influenced other open source projects (and closed source projects for that matter) in the field of CADCAM software. --Ddfalck2002 (talk) 05:02, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

*Weak delete. I think this could definitely be notable in the future as development continues- and as more refs come available from the tech press- but for now, unless someone can provide independent refs (which I could not find in a cursory I-search) it should go. The Eskimo (talk) 14:43, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I am okay with the refs now added. The Eskimo (talk) 19:56, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

EMC was first moved into the public in 1997, I was the second user outside of NIST. I have been using it in my shop since 1998. So, it has over a decade of history.

EMC is a very influential software package that is the grandfather of many machine controls and other machine control systems that is based on it. It has a large user base and a diverse development community. I would not consider deleting this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ichudov (talk • contribs) 14:49, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:05, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep This is an active open source project which is a continuation of a successful NIST development effort. It has continuing support from NIST [1]. There are plenty of GScholar and GBooks references to the project. Did the nominator even look for them? It is expected that nominators will supply available third party references instead of nominating AfD. — HowardBGolden (talk) 16:52, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong keep did the nominator read the guidelines for nominating AfD. the article is new and just growing, its about a well established opensource project archivist (talk) 17:35, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• A brief search on google-scholar returns at least 20+ scientific journal papers and conference proceedings in which the architecture of EMC is discussed, and in which EMC or EMC2 has been enhanced, modified, or used. I have added these to the references section of the article. I'm also told the EMC project has strong links to Robocrane, for which there are many more third-party references available. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.27.61.165 (talk) 19:40, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• keep: EMC is an influential Open Source package that has been used in the manufacturing industry in the US, Europe, and around the world (Argentina, Middle East, Vietnam). It has a dedicated user and developer community on http://sourceforge.net/projects/emc/ and http://linuxcnc.org . The article is a work in progress---it started without references and attributions, which was probably the weakness that prompted Wizard191's criticism; this is being addressed in the current version. Current tally has several keeps and strong keeps; could Wizard191 please reevaluate?

• Strong keep Not mentioned here is the very active IRC channel on #freenode The log (found here http://www.linuxcnc.org/irc/irc.freenode.net:6667/emc/) dates back to 2004. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.218.48.3 (talk) 03:46, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• keep In the absence of any explanation from Wizard191 as to why he flagged up 'delete' on an article that was obviously work in progress when all that was required at that stage was to flag up what HE thought was missing - references. I think this flag should simply be removed as it has no relevance to the current content and a more appropriate direction flag added if that IS now required? Probably the main reason he could not find anything when searching for Enhanced_Machine_Controller was because everybody refers to it as EMC or EMC2, but THAT is not an appropriate wikipedia page title? Lsces (talk) 06:59, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep from a user of this software for several years. There is no other, and this includes the commercial offerings, that has the combined list of features this package has. It can control on-off channels of almost any count, limited by the hardware available in the computer for i/o, and can control 9 actual methods of motion to accuracies limited by the thermal characteristics of the machine being controlled.

An open source project under constant development for well over a decade, I have been running it 5 or 6 years myself. It needs to be included on wikipedia. --204.111.67.76 (talk) 10:45, 30 September 2010 (UTC)Signed by Gene Heskett[reply]

• STRONG keep I currently use EMC2 in an industrial process, to control a guing machine for photovoltaic panel building. I really think EMC2 is a "must be considered" software for anyone that have any moving machine to control at low-cost but still with excellent performances and possibilities. It has a very good user community, active developpement, the article contains lots of references, I really don't understand why it should be deleted. Please consider let it alive ! I can make the french translation of it if needed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.253.206.218 (talk) 11:08, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• keep Please, Wizard191, could you explain us why you wan this article to be removed ? It's a very new one, quite short for now, but sure it will be added lots of informations in the next days/weeks. For the moment, I think that the wikipedia 'run for references' way leads in an article containing more references lines to tech papers than explanation on the article purpose itself. Sounds a bit stupid, isn't it ? Moreover, I really do not understand how someone member of Metalworking group can ask for the deletion of a EMC2 related article, as this software is widlely known and used in the hobby machining/metalworking community, worldwide. And even used by proffessional metalworkers ! So please keep this article alive ! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bricofoy (talk • contribs) 11:41, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong keep '"unremarkable software package"' I suppose that is why so many people use it? Perhaps Wizard191 is involved in the use/production of proprietary software the competes with EMC2 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.245.153.165 (talk) 23:26, 30 September 2010 (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.