Talk:Low-code development platform

Software: Computing C‑class Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Software, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of software 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.SoftwareWikipedia:WikiProject SoftwareTemplate:WikiProject Softwaresoftware
C	This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Computing.

Untitled

The comparison table only lists commercial products - not open source.

A second table for OS should be added.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.225.72.85 (talk • contribs)

Neither of these lists should be included (removed unsourced indiscriminate list with pricing information). Wikipedia articles are not supposed to serve as product catalog (see WP:NOTCATALOG), but should focus on encyclopedic information based on independent reliable sources. GermanJoe (talk) 07:34, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Forrester publications

The article should focus on research that provides substantial new topical information. Not every minor update needs mentioning, especially when a company floods the market with similar publications every few months (see also WP:WEIGHT). Of course noteworthy findings from one of the leading researchers should be used for encyclopedic information, but the article is not supposed to be a comprehensive list of routine publications. GermanJoe (talk) 18:19, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have trimmed this list once again, Wikipedia is no directory for PR publications and so-called market research. Improvements should focus on substantial topical information about the technology itself, not on inserting as many provider lists as possible to the article. GermanJoe (talk) 10:04, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You make a good point GermanJoe. Since this market is still maturing and analysts are releasing updated reports every year, maybe a more useful information for readers would be to include only the latest reports instead of the chronological list that's here now. Mozzello(talk) 11:31, 4 April 2019 (GMT)

We should use sources that provide the most topic-related information about the technology and its development - not just a (promotional) provider list, but substantial and relevant facts about low-code development in general. Also, most of the article should focus on established topic-related knowledge instead of recent industry news (WP:NOTNEWS applies). Admittedly the distinction is often difficult for topics that are still in flux, when a lot of the information is still "news" to begin with. I have also added a COI information on top, in case any editor with a possible conflict of interest would like to suggest changes to improve the article. GermanJoe (talk) 11:25, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestion

I'm no expert, but this seems like an evolution of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computer-aided_software_engineering — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:8A0:62FE:2F01:387A:A307:22:51F1 (talk) 21:30, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:No-code development platform

Please consider incorporating material from the above draft submission into this article. Drafts are eligible for deletion after 6 months of inactivity. ~Kvng (talk) 19:06, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge from No-code development platform

These two articles have similar structure and overlap in coverage. The distinction between no- and low-code is said to be blurry. I propose that No-code development platform be merged here. ~Kvng (talk) 15:35, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree - There is enough distinction and content between the two articles to make them separate. If the merged application were to be able to say Low Code and No Code Development and there really was nothing to separate them, then there could be a case to merge. There currently is a section in No Code development that describes the differences. Note that this request has been open for more than three months with no other comments. I suggest the proposal could be closed. Group29 (talk) 13:37, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]