Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/SmartSVN
Fails , , 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 {{u|mstrap}} and {{u|Margin1522}}, 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
— User:Rhododendrites, 20:29, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
Stance: delete
Cited policy: WP:GNG||WP:NSOFT||WP:RS||WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS||WP:N||WP:RS||WP:USEFUL (Wikipedia:Notability)