Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/SmartBear Software

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 Delete. Although sources were cited, consensus appears to be that they are not independent reliable sources. --MelanieN (talk) 23:39, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

SmartBear Software

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

Blatantly an advert suitable for speedy deletion, though another editor has removed the speedy deletion template. This article is simply a list of SmartBear's questionably notable products. There's no reliable secondary news coverage about the company (DrDobbs seems to be a website that accepts 'articles' from its readers). It doesn't come even close to meeting WP:NCORP notability criteria for companies and organizations. Definitely time for it to go. Sionk (talk) 22:15, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 22:31, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 22:31, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 22:31, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep and topic ban for nominator. The subject meets WP:GNG. Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:44, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mind citing for us the sources you claim meet the GNG? Nha Trang ^Allons! 12:02, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

From the article

From the wrb (you all did WP:BEFORE, right?

I find that most editors who discuss deletions look only at the article (look at UnitedStatesian's comment below) and do not search as is required. I did. I also read other sources that are not listed here, such as StickyMinds.com, that make a lot of hay about this subject. Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:28, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The sources (press releases and DrDobbs) are not sufficient to demonstrate this company's notability. UnitedStatesian (talk) 03:31, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - calling for a topic ban is well outside of the scope of an afd discussion. If an editor has a history of bad nominations and this has been discussed on his or her user talk page without resolution, an admin noticeboard would be the appropriate place to bring the behavioral issue.Dialectric (talk) 04:18, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete The company is probably notable, but the notability depends on an award which may or may not be a notable award--very few of the products listed at Jolt Awards are notable, and the other references are mostly not third-party reliable sources. Although I do not always agree with him, at least 3/4 of Sionk's AfD nominations have ben deleted or redirected, and a good many of the kept or non-consensus ones ought to be renominated. I highly commend his efforts to remove promotionalism from WP. DGG ( talk ) 05:20, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I'm seeing a heap of press releases, broken links and casual mentions myself, and not a single qualifying source. Given that, suggesting a topic ban for the nominator is a display of bad faith. Even if the nom's made bad nominations before -- and I've no idea one way or another -- what exactly is the problem with him making a sound one, on which so far every editor save for Mr. Gorlitz agrees with him? Nha Trang ^Allons! 12:02, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: as promotion/advert. Quis separabit? 17:20, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep it's definitely a real player in the software development industry and known and used by a lot of people. It needs improvement without doubt,but it can be fixed. CodeCurmudgeon (talk) 16:05, 18 August 2015 (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.