Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/AscentialTest


 * 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. Based on the source analysis, I do not believe this meets GNG. &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 07:33, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

AscentialTest

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Contested PROD. My web search (read: WP:BEFORE) showed no additional, unconnected sources, so unfortunately it cannot be shown that this subject has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject and so it fails WP:GNG. Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:22, 1 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:22, 1 September 2021 (UTC)


 * Comment. I disagree. I'm not sure what exactly you want with regard to independent sources but there are several on the page--all from independent sources not affiliated with Zeenyx Software. Could you please provide a better reason than, "showed no additional, unconnected sources, so unfortunately it cannot be shown that this subject has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject and so it fails"? I don't understand exactly what you are looking for? Thank you for your time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mjt2470 (talk • contribs) 18:31, 1 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I am looking for 1) significant coverage 1) in reliable sources 3) that are independent of the subject (see WP:GNG for details). Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:59, 1 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment Thanks Walter but I still do not agree. I have eight citations, all from independent sources that meet your WP:GNG "Significant coverage," "Reliable," and "Sources" definition. These are all from companies that may (or may not) have a relationship with Zeenyx but they are independent. You keep saying "My web search showed no additional, unconnected sources, so unfortunately it cannot be shown that this subject has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject and so it fails" and yet I have eight independent sources that tell a different story. Can you please explain what exactly you mean by your statement? What sort of web search are you doing and what are your expectations regarding "unconnected sources?"
 * The companies that are selling plugins are not independent. The reviews are, but they're mostly brief, but are those reviews from reliable sources or blogs? Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:05, 3 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment Here are the citation explanations: Citation #1 Matryxsoft.com is an independent authorized reseller that sells multiple QA-related tools. Citation #2 This company is an independent authorized reseller that sells AscentialTest, you may be correct about this citation and I will remove. Citation #3 Dr. Dobbs is an independent evaluator dedicated to software development/test. Citation #4 IT Central is an independent product review site (some of these reviews are quite lengthy). Citation #5 Gartner Peer Reviews is an independent product review site. Citation #6 QA TestingTools.com is an independent QA focused portal that reviews many QA tools. Citation #7 Atlassian Marketplace, this is the plug-in you mentioned and there is a plugin available with a review from Atlassian. This is still independant and owned by Atlassian. User can view several plug-ins that do the same thing to compare. Citation #8 AscentialTest by Zeenyx Archived 2016-03-04 at the Wayback Machine by Bruce Armstrong, August 01, 2013 (an independent review article by a published author). If I remove the citation #1, 2, 4, 5, 7 and 8 would that satisfy? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mjt2470 (talk • contribs) 20:38, 3 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Resellers and Atlassian Marketplace are not independent of the subject; they only make money when they sell the product. Dr. Dobbs is fine. IT Central is one of those unreliable sources as there is no author of the "review" and their about us page claims the site is a "crowdsourced knowledge platform" and no, that does not meet RS. Gartner may be a RS (although you do have to pay to be considered), but their peer reviews are user-generated and in no way reliable; one of the databases I discussed. qatestingtools.com again suffers from a lack of an author, editorial board, and anything else that would make it a WP:RS. The short review by Bruce Armstrong is a blog and not a RS. One RS. One source does not equate to sources, and so fails general notability. Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:57, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete. Walter has done an excellent review of the various sources, and made it clear that WP:THREE is not met. My own search has not turned up anything better; as such, delete. BilledMammal (talk) 06:47, 5 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete per Walter Görlitz's source analysis.4meter4 (talk) 18:10, 8 September 2021 (UTC)


 * 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.