Contents

Talk:Plastic SCM

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Plastic SCM article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

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

This page was proposed for deletionbyThumperward (talk · contribs) on 13 March 2012 with the comment: Advert with very little claim to notability established through reliable sources It was contestedbyczarkoff (talk · contribs) on 20120313 with the comment: The "External links" section contains several links to sources generally considered reliable. At least the one to The Register implies notability, didn't check the rest of them.

This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Software: Computing Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Software, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of software on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SoftwareWikipedia:WikiProject SoftwareTemplate:WikiProject Softwaresoftware articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject Computing.

Hi, please, could you specify which content should be removed from our wikipedia web page in order to agree with wikipedia legislation?? Becouse, after reviewing many other web page from our direct competitors,i don´t find any difference between at all. Thank you. 213.254.84.80 (talk) 11:05, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is an ad and a poor one at that, Please delete this page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.74.238.177 (talk • contribs) 17:01, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This product was only brought to my attention by an advertisement by the vendor, which I (as a man, if that's important to you) found offensive and degrading of women. And yet the article has nothing to say about how the product has been advertised? Are we really expected to believe that absolutely no one of any notability has published material related to this advertising? — 184.32.175.25 (talk) 00:15, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The DrDobbs link is a press-release rather than a review. The same for EETimes, etc. (reviews should contrast alternatives and pros/cons rather than solely citing nice things to say about a product). It appears that only the screenshots posted by de Icaza are independent commentary - and still not a review, per se. TEDickey (talk) 10:44, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]