Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/SmartForm

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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 15:18, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

SmartForm[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

It exists and has some coverage - it is borderline hence sitting in CAT:NN for 11 years. It is hard to separate the promotion from the information. It doesn't seem notable by any criteria except GNG, and I don't think it has the level of coverage for GNG. Boleyn (talk) 08:37, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I think this is still a legitimate and helpful page, especially with the dramatic increase in Smart Forms this year with covid. I think it it satisfies GNG. Cabrils (talk) 05:38, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:57, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:57, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:16, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kj cheetham (talk) 18:41, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Kj cheetham (talk) 18:42, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanamonde (Talk) 05:20, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: No, this does not satisfy the GNG. None of the non-primary (and I do emphasize that) sources are more than casual mentions or namedrops. Being "legitimate" or "helpful" meet no policy or guideline criterion to keep, and whether more people are using this thing or not -- entirely speculative -- does not by that reason alone generate significant coverage in reliable sources of the subject. Ravenswing 07:53, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not enough significant and independent coverage to establish notability. ɴᴋᴏɴ21 ❯❯❯ talk 00:01, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No reliable significant coverage. SL93 (talk) 03:09, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does not have enough independent coverage to be notable. Nika2020 (talk) 21:27, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete With all of the dead links and confused wording, it's confusing whether this article is trying to establish promoting a non-notable generic neologism or a non-notable commercial product, but either way it fails wp:notability as such. North8000 (talk) 12:20, 30 July 2020 (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.