This article has not yet been rated on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Computing This article is within the scope of WikiProject Computing, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of computers, computing, and information technology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ComputingWikipedia:WikiProject ComputingTemplate:WikiProject ComputingComputing ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. Brands This article is within the scope of WikiProject Brands, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of brands on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.BrandsWikipedia:WikiProject BrandsTemplate:WikiProject BrandsBrands ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

If you are going to mark something for deletion please give people chance to respond.

I agree that the previous version should have been deleted. It contained personal comments (positive and negative) about the software and contain large sections of copied marketing material. What I have added I believe is neutral and factual and corresponds to content I added in articles of similar software (SolidWorks/NX/Cata). If you believe this text needs to be deleted please be specific to what you object to and we can discuss if this information should be removed from all other articles on CAD software.

• The problem isn't that it had positive or negative information. The problem is that it's unverifiable as it cites no reliable sources, and it's not a company that calls for encyclopaedic notice WilyD 12:49, 10 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

• I believe the original delete was because it was biased information. If the complaint now is that it is unverifiable data then a Unreferenced tag should be added (which is a fair point, although all the information here is taken from other wiki pages). Note also this is not a company, it is a software tool (which there are many articles on in Wikipedia).

Freeformer 15:02, 10 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

Solid Edge, the product discussed on this page, meets the notability requirement, as there have been at least seven independent books written about it. See, among others, Tickoo, Sham (2006.11). [http://amazon.com/o/ASIN/1932709363/ "A tale of two CAD systems"]. CADCIM Technologies. {{cite web}}: Check |url= value (help); Check date values in: |date= (help)

The company which owns the product meets the notabilty requirement, as it is (effective May 7, 2007) a division of Siemens, one of the largest corporations in the world.

EvanYares 18:21, 10 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

The self-described marketing director for Solid Edge, User:SolidEdgeGuRu, has posted what I consider to be blatant advertising for his/her product in this article, and has ignored three editors who called it that. It was tagged, by someone else, with {{advert}} two weeks ago, but there has been no improvement. In a few minutes, I'm going to remove most of it. The lead seems to be a slight improvement, so after reviewing once more I'll probably keep that, but everything else will be reverted back to the pre-ad version.

I haven't taken this to WP:COIN because I didn't have the time to figure out the procedure before going on vacation. However, if this ad copy is reinserted, I will, and am very confident that other editors there will agree this does not belong here.

I have asked SolidEdgeGuRu a couple of times to comply with WP:COI, but he/she has not done so. I don't know much about this subject, so I can't really re-write it myself, nor can I judge its notability, and whether it deserves a PROD or an AfD, but I know ad copy when I see it. --barneca (talk) 23:53, 14 August 2007 (UTC)Reply

As far as I know - the official solid edge website still says ST6 - so this is probably false marketing ploy as far as I can tell. Someone should look into this before I or someone else remove that from history. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.141.142.3 (talk) 17:34, 9 March 2014 (UTC)Reply