Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Automated BuildStudio


 * 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. Courcelles (talk) 20:31, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

Automated BuildStudio

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Clearly the least notable SmartBear Software product being promoted on Wikipedia. Cited only to SmartBear and I can't see any evidence of it being profiled in any reliable secondary sources. There's no claim of it even winning the most minor tech award. Fails WP:GNG. Sionk (talk) 18:52, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. North America1000 23:18, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — ☮ JAaron95  Talk   15:20, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Delete - Software article of unclear notability, lacking independent references. Only non-company ref is to softpedia, which as a download site is not entirely independent and in any case would not on its own be sufficient to establishing notability. A search turned up no significant WP:RS coverage. Software is discontinued so future RS coverage is unlikely.Dialectric (talk) 18:12, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — ☮ JAaron95  Talk   13:33, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete agree with reasons above. Old software that is no longer supported; of dubious improtance to users other than developers. References are self-published by maker of software. The article reminds me ofmthe old software manuals one sees at yard sales. Valuable imformation for perhaps one person in a million. New Media Theorist (talk) 15:33, 31 August 2015 (UTC)


 * 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.