- 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. Spartaz Humbug! 11:19, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- SmarteScript (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Non-notable software. Fails WP:N and no WP:RS are given. Basket of Puppies 17:24, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this software. Joe Chill (talk) 21:16, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- Joe Chill (talk) 21:16, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nomination. This is a GUI-driven software test automation tool for automating the testing of software applications; a tool for computer programmers, apparently, and as such falling within the skewed-towards side of Wikipedia's inherent bias. Mentioning the Gartner "magic quadrants" in the article's text and making a plea for its importance ("a recognition given only to those with significant market presence") suggests clutching at straws on the notability front. Note also that this is yet another article that sprung full blown, complete with infobox, at its creation. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 00:22, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. This software is one of the viable candidates for test automation. The Test Automation list contains entries of equal or less importance. For consistency, one either ought to remove all vendors or keep them as long as the article does not smell of advertisment. I added the entry and I do NOT work for SmarteSoft, but was missing the tool from the list of candidates... Petter Graff —Preceding undated comment added 00:59, 23 October 2009 (UTC).[reply]
- Comment presenting an argument of all or nothing does not make for a compelling case to keep the article. What is needed is coverage in reliable sources.
- Weak Keep - The software has been covered here, and more importantly in Dr. Dobb's which is a well recognized magazine for software development. Also [1], and [2] which are somewhat press releasish so I'd tend to not put a lot of weight to them for notability but in support of the Dr. Dobb's review, I'd put this over the notability bar. -- Whpq (talk) 16:48, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Looking at sources above by whpq, the ITJunge is a press release reprint. Dr. Dobbs is a two paragraph review. Neither of these are significant. Miami33139 (talk) 18:09, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep The sources provided by Whpq establish notability. The Dr. Dobbs source provides a lengthy two paragraph discussion that is solely about SmartScript; then, it compares SmartScript with another software. The depth of coverage in this article qualifies as "significant" coverage. Furthermore, this article from SV Times provides some basic information about SmartScript. This article does not read like a press release (it does not contain promotional language) and is published by SD Times, a reliable source. Cunard (talk) 08:38, 30 October 2009 (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.