Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/International Software Testing Qualifications Board Certified Tester (2nd nomination)


 * 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   merge to International Software Testing Qualifications Board. merge into International Software Testing Qualifications Board as suggested by the nom. I cannot see the justification of keepingtwo articles. The keep opinions are correct that the material schould be covered, but not that it necessarily needs a separate article to do so  DGG ( talk ) 01:30, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

International Software Testing Qualifications Board Certified Tester
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log )

Either merge this into ISTQB or just delete. This alone is not notable. Jasper Deng (talk) 03:32, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This does not concern the notability of the organization, but that of one of its certifications.Jasper Deng (talk) 18:36, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete. The organization is probably notable, but this sub-article of it is not, and it's hardly a likely search term considering that it goes through the parent, so to speak. Drmies (talk) 03:57, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete. Erkan Yilmaz 10:15, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 14:58, 7 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete® Spam. OSbornarfcontribs. 16:16, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Selective merge into International Software Testing Qualifications Board with redirect and edit history deletion: there is a topic for this, and there is no need to spawn multiple articles on each of possible aspects. From the first glance the subject of this discussion contains some potentially valuable information, and if this impression is correct, this information should be merged into ISTQB. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 18:04, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep per previous AfD. Describing this as spam is ridiculous. This is an internationally-recognized professional series of qualifications, covered by several published books. It has therefore clearly been the subject of non-trivial coverage. It seems bizarre that this could be considered 'not notable enough' for Wikipedia.--Michig (talk) 18:10, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
 * The organization is, but the position is not.Jasper Deng (talk) 18:30, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
 * The subject of the article is a series of qualifications, not a 'position'. Did you not read the article?--Michig (talk) 18:40, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Whatever it is, this particular part of the organization is non-notable on its own.Jasper Deng (talk) 20:59, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
 * It isn't 'part of the organization', it's a series of professional qualifications for which ISTQB is the international examining board. Would that be non-notable as in several independent authors having had books published about it?--Michig (talk) 21:16, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Look, a particular qualification is not notable alone, only if we include it in the main ISTQB article. Do the books cover this qualification in particular? How many are there? If they just cover the syllabi or just the organization itself (or several of its qualifications), they don't lend notability, period.Jasper Deng (talk) 23:09, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Hmm, so a qualification is notable if we include it in the ISTQB article? Very strange reasoning. There are several books that cover these qualifications only - you can find them on Amazon.--Michig (talk) 07:46, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, just like Windows 8's logo change is a notable aspect of it but does not deserve a new article.Jasper Deng (talk) 20:05, 8 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete on the same basis as no inherited notability. The qualification inherits its notability from the organisation and, on its own with no reference to the organisation, has insufficient notability. QU TalkQu  16:18, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Where do you get this inheritance idea from? There are books about this set of certifications.--Michig (talk) 16:39, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
 * There are books that teach to the exam, they are not books about the exam (e.g., a book describing the history and evolution of the exam). As an analogy, the Vodafone "voicemail" service is not notable. It is notable purely as a service of Vodafone and while it may be discussed in the Vodafone article it wouldn't warrant an article of its own. There may be magazine articles, guidebooks and instruction manuals on how to use the Vodafone voicemail service. It still isn't notable. However, if someone writes a history of the development of voicemail and references the Vodafone service as being ground breaking then it becomes notable in its own right. In the case we are discussing here the exam is not notable, its notability extends from (is inherited from) the organisation. For it to gain independent notability there need to be independent sources discussing it. QU TalkQu 17:33, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
 * The books also include detail about the certification, easily sufficient to constitute significant coverage.--Michig (talk) 17:43, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Not easily, now that I think of it. By your argument, Technet's certification exams would be notable (since there are also books on it).Jasper Deng (talk) 21:58, 16 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Note to closing admin. I sincerely hope the quality of the arguments put forward in this discussion will be taken into account. A professional certification held by over 200,000 people in over 70 countries belongs in an encyclopedia. Several of the arguments for deletion do not appear to be based on an understanding of what the article is about.--Michig (talk) 17:43, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
 * No, you could also say that of various other certifications.Jasper Deng (talk) 21:58, 16 March 2012 (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.