Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/QA Wizard Pro


 * 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. Jayjg (talk) 01:51, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

QA Wizard Pro

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Promotion for non-notable software product. I have been unable to find any significant coverage, and the sources given are either self-published or incidental mentions. Haakon (talk) 19:40, 24 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Haakon (talk) 19:42, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete. Obvious advertising (developed by Seapine Software, a leader in ALM industry) for run of the mill software without any historical, technical, or cultural significance (provides functional and regression test automation for 32-bit/64-bit Windows, Web, and Java applications with advanced object binding capabilities). - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 17:09, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete. Obvious advertising (developed by Seapine Software, a leader in ALM industry) for run of the mill software without any historical, technical, or cultural significance (provides functional and regression test automation for 32-bit/64-bit Windows, Web, and Java applications with advanced object binding capabilities). - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 17:09, 25 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep. There are thousands of large companies which do use this software (what companies are going to widely advertise every backend tool they use?), and the feature set it has is wider than most other offerings (which currently have articles in wikipedia but aren't marked for deletion). I have been working to compare several of the offerings in this area, but it is this one which actually functions the best and at a price that isn't shameful.  Article can't be self-promoting because I'm the author and am developer evaluating several similar tools including one from Microsoft.  The mention by InfoTech is not an incidental mention and in fact compares top offerings showing this tool as leading.   SlightlybentOR (talk)  13:05, 28 May 2010 (UTC)


 * As far as not technically significant, I've update the article to include mention of ability to create an OCR checkpoint. That's an advanced feature not found in any but the most expensive automation tools.  yet, QAWP is low cost.  That's significant.  SlightlybentOR (talk) 13:11, 28 May 2010 (UTC)


 * To sum up my Keep arguments: 1) there are other less significant GUI QA automation tools currently with articles on wikipedia so if this page is removed then many others on that list should also be taken down. 2) QAWP has features which even some of the expensive automation tools do not possess (such as the Optical Character Recognition checkpoint feature).  So that alone is a reason to keep as that is a technically significant feature.   And to add a further thought: 3) This tool is used by Enterprises and software development companies, and is therefore of interest not to the general public (other than of interest as the type of tools used by industry) yet is significant even while not having wide coverage.  SlightlybentOR (talk) 13:24, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Re 1, WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS is not a valid Keep argument. --Cyber cobra (talk) 00:14, 29 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete Unable to locate coverage satisfying the general notability guideline. --Cyber cobra (talk) 00:42, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete lacks the level of coverage in independent reliable sources required to establish notability. Nuttah (talk) 12:21, 30 May 2010 (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.