Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kanoah Tests


 * 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. Sarahj2107 (talk) 10:40, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Kanoah Tests

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

contested prod. WP:SPA editor recently added this article about a product that does not meet WP:GNG Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:29, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

Why is my article proposed for deletion?

It does have reliable sources, actual people talking about Kanoah Tests

Other editors have submitted similar articles and nobody proposed these for deletion
 * TestLink
 * TestTrack
 * HP Quality Center
 * Rational Quality Manager

I feel like I'm being discriminated — Preceding unsigned comment added by Amaderna (talk • contribs) 16:38, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I am sorry you're feeling discriminated against. I have no intention of doing so. Those other articles have significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject (see WP:GNG). I could not find that for Kanoah Tests. Those other products are stand-alone, not plug-ins, which may explain why they have significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent. Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:57, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:29, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:29, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:29, 22 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete at best and only draft & userfy if needed as none of this better satisfies the web notability. SwisterTwister   talk  07:25, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete unless better sources are found and included or presented here to establish notability clearly. At presnet the StilSoft source is the only one that looks both reliable and in-depth. The Favio Genovese source is a blog. The QuaTest.  source includes the phrase "As beta testers, we are working very closely the Kanoah team." It is not independent. The G2Crowd source looks to be user-generated content and hence not reliable for Wikipedia. The QA Testing Tools source is rather brief, and seems to be based on a press release. The Advandus  source includes the text "Advandus is available in an advisory capacity as an official partner of Kanoah for the success of your projects." and so is also not independent. We need independent published reliable sources to establish notability, with some depth of coverage. DES (talk) 02:29, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete as per the above. WP:USUAL applies, of course - if the system gets more notice in independent, reliable sources (as defined by our policies), then perhaps an article might work. Unfortunately, we're not there yet. UltraExactZZ Said~ Did 21:21, 1 March 2016 (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.