Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/SmartSVN
reply|Rhododendrites}} 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" (). 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. –&nbsp
— User:Margin1522, 22:46, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
Stance: comment
Cited policy: WP:GNG||WP:PSTS||WP:OR||WP:WPNOTRS (Wikipedia:Notability)