Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/SmartBear Software (2nd nomination)


 * 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 no consensus. King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 04:24, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

SmartBear Software
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

I do not think there is any credible claim of notability here, nor are the sources substantial enough to confer notability. TheLongTone (talk) 14:31, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. North America1000 15:07, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. North America1000 15:07, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 15:08, 11 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep The previous AfD has many sources and more have been created since. Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:03, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep. Major player in its industry area. Sufficient sources exist. --Michig (talk) 06:22, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete The result of the previous AfD was Delete and the article does not appear to have been improved since then, nor are there any new sources that meet the criteria for establishing notability. Can the previous "Keep" !voters explain point to which of the sources meet the criteria to establish notability please? All of the references are either advertorials, mentions in passing or PR releases, therefore fails WP:CORPDEPTH and GNG.  -- HighKing ++ 15:52, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete -- strictly promotional; this content belongs on the company web site, not here. No indications of notability or significance; "sufficient sources exist" is not a valid argument in a deletion discussion. I've reviewed the sources from the first AfD and they are not independent reliable sources. Should be again deleted & perhaps salted. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:03, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep I have added more sources to the page, (see sources 12-15) and made a few edits (see the last sentence under "History and founding" with sources 7-10). I am curious if you have any recommendations about which specific aspects of the page need the most attention, and how I should go about improving it so it does not get taken down? Eugene450 (talk) 13:24, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment The problem is that the existing sources do not meet the criteria for establishing notability. You've added more references which is great, thank you, but the references you've added also do not meet the criteria for establishing notability. You say you added references 12-15. Reference 12 is the same as 18 and fails WP:ORGIND as it is a simple regurgitation of a Press Release and/or not "intellectually independent". This is the same problems for references 14 and 15. Reference 13 only mentions the company in passing. -- HighKing ++ 17:05, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
 * The problem is that the sources do meet RS and the quantity do help subject meet GNG. Have a nice day. PS: I have correctly formatted your indenting per MOS:LISTGAP. Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:25, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Very kind, thank you. So what are you saying? That *all* the sources meet the criteria for establishing notability? Or some sources? Can you pick a couple that you believe are acceptable please and it gives everyone an idea of which sources to look at in particular because the article has a lot and most of those are PR statements or interviews and all of that type of reference fails WP:ORGIND. I've commented on the most recent ones that were added above and they clearly do not meet the criteria.  -- HighKing ++ 19:00, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I can, but it's going to break indenting.
 * RSes that discus the company
 * Only partial access, but clearly discusses the subject in detail
 * Discusses the creation of the company in five paragraphs
 * RSes that discus the companies that were bought by SoftBear and mention SmartBear
 * discusses sale of company and one it absorbed
 * Discusses sale of company to another company
 * Discusses the sale of AlertSite to SmartBear
 * Discusses the sale of AlertSite to SmartBear
 * SmartBear's role in development centres
 * SmartBear's role in Galway
 * Discusses the company in terms of its tenancy in a new tech region, Assembly Row, in Boston, but goes into detail on the company
 * Assembly Row discussion again
 * RSes but do not discuss the subject directlin in detail
 * Discusses a senior hire at SmartBear, but focuses on the hire not the company
 * the open sourcing of SoapUI, a SmartBear product
 * Focus is on Collaborator and only a one-paragraph intro on the company
 * Discusses one the company's tools.
 * Discusses Ready! API, a SmartBear product
 * SmartBear product AlertSite is the focus
 * Discusses LoadComplete, one of SmartBear's products
 * AlertSite, smartBear product
 * discusses SwaggerHub, a SmartBear product
 * discusses Eviware, a SmartBear product
 * brief mention of the company. Focus is on the tech sector in Galway
 * Another discussion of Galway
 * SmartBear's role in Galway, but focus is on Galway
 * Brief mention of SmartBear in Galaway
 * discusses SmartBear leaving the region
 * Discusses Tula, a tech centre in Russia, where SmartBear has set-up
 * Not RSes (press releases, self-pub)
 * none
 * Unclear as site requires membership
 * Is this a special case of Wikipedia:ICANTHEARYOU where you are unintentionally being "disruptive and time wasting"? It seems to me that you made up your mind before you looked at the sources in the article and did not do a Google search at all. If that's the case, you're a waste of space and you desrve a topic ban from AfDs. Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:05, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Is this a special case of Wikipedia:ICANTHEARYOU where you are unintentionally being "disruptive and time wasting"? It seems to me that you made up your mind before you looked at the sources in the article and did not do a Google search at all. If that's the case, you're a waste of space and you desrve a topic ban from AfDs. Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:05, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Is this a special case of Wikipedia:ICANTHEARYOU where you are unintentionally being "disruptive and time wasting"? It seems to me that you made up your mind before you looked at the sources in the article and did not do a Google search at all. If that's the case, you're a waste of space and you desrve a topic ban from AfDs. Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:05, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Winged Blades Godric  05:28, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Oh Wow, disruptive and time-wasting? Feel better? You could always have waited until you were less cranky to respond (unless this is your normal mood). Had I known that the breaking of your beloved indentation would prove so traumatic, I could have asked an easier-to-understand question - saved you the bother of creating an answer to a question nobody has asked. Nevertheless, you've put a lot of effort into your response....
 * You appear to understand what WP:RS is all about (great) but I asked specifically about CORPDEPTH and ORGIND which maybe you missed in what I've now assumed was a red mist of rage (inadvertently) caused by my asking a simple question (which I thought is the point, after all, of discussions on AfD). I asked Can you pick a couple that you believe are acceptable with regards to those criteria but there's nothing in your vinegary response to indicate that you have critically examined the *contents* of the articles being referred to and I apologize for not anticipating the trouble you obviously had with the word "couple".
 * For example. Here's the "official" Press Release for the Francisco Partners acquisition at the start of the month. Compared against the first RS you list I would say it fails ORGIND as the news article is plainly regurgitating a Press Release.
 * Similarly, the other RS you proclaim is this blog post from bizjournals. I was always under the impression that blogs are considered self-published and therefore fail RS.
 * But, you know Walter, it is clear that all you really want is to drive away collegiate editors that are interested in quality articles who ask really simply questions (apologies again for using that difficult word "couple") so I'll just leave this as it is and leave my !vote unchanged. -- HighKing ++ 07:57, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Don't really care about CORPDEPTH or ORGIND since they all die in respect to GNG. Sorry to have pissed you off. No, no all blogs are not considered self-pubs. If it's a self-published blog it certainly is. If it's writing for a company that has an editorial process, it's not. I won't comment on the rest of your diatribe per WP:TROLLFOOD, but I will say, in relation to assuming that I was responding in anger (or rage), you might want to read about psychological projection. Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:15, 26 May 2017 (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.