Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/SmartQ

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. postdlf (talk) 04:50, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

SmartQ

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

Software product without claim or credible indication of notability. Created by a representative of the company that created the software, judging by the username. Their rationale for creating it was to inform the community about new Kanban apps out there, which is understandable but not part of what Wikipedia is intended for. One review on an independent website (I think it's independent anyway), but that's not really enough to show notability. bonadea contributions talk 20:53, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Actually, make that two reviews - I thought the DreamCSS one was a press release at first, but it appears to actually be a brief review of the product. Still not enough to keep the article IMO. --bonadea contributions talk 20:56, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:24, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:25, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Yet another web-based ticket tracking and project management system. Article is unambiguous advertising, with nothing more than a feature's list. No showing that this one product in a crowded field has had significant impact on history, technology, or culture of the kind that makes for long term historical notability. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 20:57, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above and WP:NOTADVERTISING.- Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 16:57, 5 April 2011 (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.