Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Msys Test Automation Solutions


 * 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. None of the keep arguments address the issue of the lack of significant coverage in reliable secondary sources which is required to meet the notability guidelines. Therefore they can be given little, if any, weight and so the consensus for deletion here is apparent. Davewild (talk) 18:50, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Msys Test Automation Solutions

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  Stats )

The article does not cite independent sources, and I did not find evidence that this subject meets the notability criteria. Previously prodded. FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 15:31, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete. I also found no reliable sources indicating any notability, and there's a strong overtone of advertising, I think.  Ubelowme U  Me  15:42, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. &#9733;&#9734;  DUCK IS PEANUTBUTTER &#9734;&#9733; 16:02, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. &#9733;&#9734;  DUCK IS PEANUTBUTTER &#9734;&#9733; 16:02, 4 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete. Lacks reliable independent secondary sources to establish notability as required by WP:GNG. Sources offered are WP:PRIMARY and unhelpful.  Google searches turned up nothing useful.  Wikipedia is not for WP:PROMOTION.  Msnicki (talk) 18:42, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete, fails WP:NSOFT. -Cntras (talk) 07:01, 5 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep, This article is an independent sources of an Test Automation Solutions, Msys test automation solutions and it is an useful information source. 220.227.30.39 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 07:58, 11 July 2012 (UTC) — 220.227.30.39 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * Keep, Good tool for Automation testing — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bala2it4u (talk • contribs) 08:11, 11 July 2012 (UTC)  — Bala2it4u (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * Keep, Its an unique testing solutions — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vigneshw (talk • contribs) 09:11, 11 July 2012 (UTC)  — Vigneshw (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * Keep: I wrote this article to use less language from their website and add more meaningful citations (I am not affiliated with this project). This is an solutions for automated testing. It will useful notable article that should be present in Wikipedia article page as Encyclopedia. Aanand2888 (talk) — Aanand2888 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * Keep: This page is from a reliable information source. Googling this throws several links like whitepaper etc and this doesnt look like marketing. This is a crisp information base for a moderately popular software. Worthy data and wikipedia could keep. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shawilinie (talk • contribs) 09:39, 11 July 2012 (UTC)  — Shawilinie (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * Comment. All of the Keep !votes appear to be a mishmash of WP:ITSUSEFUL, WP:ITEXISTS, WP:VALINFO, WP:GOOGLEHITS and WP:ILIKEIT.  These are all WP:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions.  At AfD, the only thing that matters is whether WP:Notability can be established and for that, it takes reliable sources.  It's not enough that a subject seems notable.  Others not connected to the subject have to have actually taken note and they have to done that in WP:Reliable sources.  So far as I could tell – and none of the keep !votes offer evidence to the contrary – those sources don't exist.  Msnicki (talk) 14:27, 11 July 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.