Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/SmartSVN


 * 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   merge to  Comparison of Subversion clients. After several relistings, there's consensus for a merge & redirect to  Comparison of Subversion clients. Will one of the people who suggested the merge please carry it out.  DGG ( talk ) 18:40, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

SmartSVN

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

I placed a PROD tag on this article because it was unsourced, but it was removed by an IP without any sources being added, so here we are at AFD. As mentioned, this is an unsourced article. I've looked, but the only sources I can find about this topic are the usual self published blog postings and download site descriptions for niche software, along with a few trivial mentions in books that list SVN clients. I think this article does not meet the general notability guideline and should be deleted. See also Articles for deletion/SmartGit, where the version of this software that uses Git as a backend was deleted last year. - MrOllie (talk) 14:29, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions.  Everymorning   talk to me  14:53, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

SmartSVN is one of many other SVN clients. Why should this article be deleted while similar ones may remain although they are "unsourced" as well:


 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ESvn
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kdesvn
 * many other clients listed at: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_Subversion_clients

- mstrap (talk) 14:29, 7 December 2014 (UTC) — mstrap (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. From the looks of it, there is not a single article that meets the nom's RS standards. I think when developers are looking for a tool like an SVN client, they check lists like this, check SourceForge, and visit the official websites. Therefore, we should allow the official website as an RS for information about the tool. Otherwise we'll have to delete the whole article Comparison of Subversion clients, because that is sourced to official websites. I don't think that would be beneficial to the encyclopedia. It's a heavily edited page that gets 400 hits a day. – Margin1522 (talk) 19:54, 13 December 2014 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
 * Keep – Per, we can call it niche software, but for developers version control is definitely not a niche application. Just as an exercise, I looked at the sources of all articles in the table in Comparison of Subversion clients.
 * 1) AnkhSVN: Official website
 * 2) Cascade (software): Official website
 * 3) CODESYS: Major IDE, article briefly mentions Subversion as an option (mention is unsourced)
 * 4) ESvn: Official website, Sourceforge
 * 5) KDESvn: Official website
 * 6) PixelNovel Timeline: Passing mention in Photoshop plug-in review, Apple blog
 * 7) QSvn: Official website
 * 8) RapidSVN: Blog, official website
 * 9) SmartSVN: Official website
 * 10) Subcommander: No article
 * 11) SVN Notifier: Official website
 * 12) SVNBreeze: Official website
 * 13) TortoiseSVN: Official website, SourceForge, plug-in host website
 * 14) Trac: Official website (many pages), blog
 * 15) ViewVC: Official website, Sourceforge, Cpan
 * 16) VisualSVN: Official website, Subversion official website, TortoiseSVN official website
 * 17) Xcode: Major IDE, article briefly mentions Subversion as a feature (mention is unsourced).

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 08:42, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete. It isn't notable enough for inclusion and we don't have reliable sources available on which to base an article. --Michig (talk) 12:53, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment – I have added the following paragraph to the article, with sources from Bloomberg and Open Source Magazine: "WANdisco acquired SmartSVN from Syntevo in September 2012 . As of 2012, the software had been adopted by developers across more than 2,500 companies, and was recording more than 10,000 downloads a month.[1] WANdisco is a major corporate sponsor of the Subversion project. In 2009 it hired core Subversion committers, and in 2010 hired Subversion release manager Hyrum Wright to lead its efforts with the Subversion project.[2] The company sponsors an SVN Forum with sections on community news, Subversion, and SmartSVN.[3]" The paragraph doesn't say so, but users include Fortune 500 companies. I think this might be enough to help it pass WP:RS and WP:NSOFTWARE. For the notability of Subversion itself, see Apache Subversion. – Margin1522 (talk) 22:50, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Simple repostings of financial reports and press releases (your two new sources, respectively) generally aren't considered to build the case for notability. - MrOllie (talk) 12:20, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment – OK, I have added the following, based on a review by an unaffiliated hosting service. "In a comparative review of the most popular SVN clients by the Subversion hosting service Assembla, SmartSVN was ranked second overall. It was the only client to receive a rating of five stars for Linux and the only client to receive five stars for both Windows and Mac OS. It was cited for features, ease of use, and documentation.[4]" As for the other cites, I thought the popularity of the software and the fact that the company employs the lead developers of the standard would be relevant to notability. – Margin1522 (talk) 06:28, 21 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete Article fails WP:GNG, unable to find any significant coverage about this software. &mdash; kikichugirl  speak up! 02:46, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.  The article notes: "SmartSVN is a graphical client for Subversion (SVN) which is an Open Source version control system. SmartSVN is aimed mainly at professionals that need a reliable, efficient and well-supported SVN client for their daily business. SmartSVN is cross platforms running on all major platforms and makes common SVN operations much easier such as switching to another branch and other complex tasks. SmartSVN works from it's own user interface or from directly within Windows Explorer and includes an SVN client, file comparer, conflict solver and SSH client meaning there's no need for external tools. The main payoff of SmartSVN for companies is increased productivity and a streamlined workflows that save time so that licensing costs pay off quickly. SmartSVN is a highly technical application that only those that use Subversion will really appreciate." I consider this source reliable. See also Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 101.     The article notes: "SmartSVN SmartSVN is another cross-platform SVN client, but targeted more at professional developers. The client comes in free and professional versions, with the professional version starting at $79 USD." </ol>There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow SmartSVN to pass Notability, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". Cunard (talk) 06:00, 26 December 2014 (UTC)</li></ul> <div class="xfd_relist" style="border-top: 1px solid #AAA; border-bottom: 1px solid #AAA; padding: 0px 25px;"> Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz Humbug! 09:18, 26 December 2014 (UTC) <div class="xfd_relist" style="border-top: 1px solid #AAA; border-bottom: 1px solid #AAA; padding: 0px 25px;"> Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Arfæst! 19:21, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete - Fails WP:GNG, WP:NSOFT, etc. Only one of the three keep !votes is based in any policy at all, but I disagree that the sources come anywhere close to GNG/NSOFT. Regarding comments by and, the standards for reliable sourcing are not the nominator's; they are common to all of Wikipedia (click that link). Primary sources simply do not count to establish notability. That other articles exist with similar problems does not mean this should be kept, but may mean others should be deleted if they don't meet standards for notability and reliable sourcing. That something is useful is likewise an argument to keep as lots of things are useful to different people and we need a measure somewhat more objective than that to determine what subjects to include. --&mdash; <span style="font-family:monospace, monospace;"> Rhododendrites  <sup style="font-size:80%;">talk  \\ 20:29, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete. Also consider Cascade (Software), Esvn, ... for deletion. We can delete these individual articles but still list the clients in Comparison of Subversion clients -- just because articles on the individual pieces of software are insignificant and non-verifiable does not mean that a list of them is inappropriate. Per WP:CSC, we can make a "short, complete list of every item that is verifiably a member of the group" Piboy51 (talk) 22:02, 2 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment – That's not quite the argument I was making. I'm familiar with GNG and PSTS. My problem with many invocations of  GNG in AfD discussions is that they lack a rationale and are essentially "I'm not interested." We have GNG standards because interpretive claims and analysis should be based on secondary sources rather than OR. My point was that primary sources "can be reliable and useful in certain situations" (WP:WPNOTRS). A list of the features in a software app is one of those situations. There is no analysis involved, no claims about third parties, nothing likely to be challenged. That's my point and it applies to content. As for notability, consider indie films. Most indie films are never reviewed in the New York Times. But some of them are, so it's not unreasonable to say that an indie film needs coverage in the NYT or another mainstream publication to be notable. But the NYT never reviews SVN clients. They are not of "general interest" in the domain of national newspapers. But they are of general interest in the domain of software development. What we need is coverage in that domain that is as objective as what you would find in the NYT if it did review SVN clients. I found a source in this domain that reviewed this software in some depth, making interpretive claims and calling it one of the best and most popular applications in the category. If that's not enough, I guess I'll just have to accept it. The decision is up to whoever closes this discussion. – Margin1522 (talk) 22:46, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
 * The Assembla review you found (linkWebCite) is another reliable source about the subject. I agree that there is enough material here to pass Notability. Editors supporting deletion have not explained why the sources we've provided aren't "significant coverage in reliable sources". Cunard (talk) 00:21, 9 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment – I'm arguing from a software developer perspective who is primarily dealing with version control systems (and less experienced with Wikipedia guidelines): when searching for a (Subversion client) software in a pool of many small software products, Wikipedia is a welcome source to get an overview of which applications are available and to get some dispassionate information on them. In this way, the list at Comparison of Subversion clients is very helpful and (at least for me) it's on Google position #2 for search terms "svn clients" and position #5 for search terms "svn client". The individual articles might not be as helpful as this comparison, but are still a good place to collect basic information which won't be easy to locate on the official websites, especially the commercial ones with all the marketing blah blah. Interestingly, the situation is different for Git which is comparable to SVN in audience and popularity. I couldn't find a similar comparison of client software, probably caused by the fact that the official Git website already delivers this information: http://git-scm.com/downloads/guis . Also, you won't find individual Wikipedia articles for many of the tools listed there (I've searched for "GitHub for Mac", "SourceTree", "SmartGit", "Tower (disambiguation)", "GitEye"). So, there is some kind of imbalance. My vote to resolve these issues would be to either (i) allow individual articles for all available tools (for SVN, Git and all other VCS) for which there is evidence that these tools are used by a reasonable number of users, i.e. are not just 'experimental', or (ii) to get rid of all individual articles. – mstrap (talk) 10:48, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Merge – I agree this does not yet seem notable enough for its own article but it seems to be notable enough as a product of WANdisco to at least move applicable content there. 50.126.125.240 (talk) 15:56, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Merge to Comparison of Subversion clients. The various source control systems (git, hg, svn, etc, etc) are interesting and deserve articles.  But individual clients do not.  There's dozens of clients for each system.  They all basically do the same thing.  Covering the minor differences between the multitude of clients is adequately handled by a Comparison of clients article for each system.  -- RoySmith (talk) 17:14, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Merge and Redirect to Comparison of Subversion clients. Article prose makes no extraordinary claim that raises it above any of the other Subversion Clients. Hasteur (talk) 15:44, 13 January 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.