Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/QTest


 * 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. Stifle (talk) 15:04, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

QTest

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Recently recreated article about a non-notable product. Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:03, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 17:45, 12 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete: The "Software Testing Help" review does not strike me as sufficient to demonstrate notability, nor am I finding anything better for this particular qTest. I also note that there are articles for the related qTrace and qTest eXplorer (upgraded names for a product). AllyD (talk) 17:51, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Should not Delete: The wiki page of qTest only shows it's history and development path for those who wonder what qTest is. No attempt to advertise. Also, if anyone feels like "Software Testing Help" isn't a reliable source I included another product review from SOA Magazine by another different author. Tea Nguyen (talk) 21:58, 13 February 2014 (ETC)
 * Showing the history and development of the product can be done at the company site: www.qasymphony.com. Wikipedia is not a website for you to publicize products, it's for describing notable ones. Without reliable sources, which was the problem the last time you created the article and it was deleted, it doesn't meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines. Considering that all you have done on Wikipedia is work on this company's products, I must assume you are somehow associated with the company and that makes you a single-purpose acocunt. I suspect that we may need to invoke WP:SALT as well. For the record, SOA World Magazine isn't a reliable source. It appears that anyone can sign-up and can write an article. http://www.ulitzer.com/authors?page=1 lists the information on the author of the newly added review. There does not appear to be an editorial board or editor in chief. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:15, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:09, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:09, 14 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete - Software article of unclear notability, lacking significant coverage in reliable sources. The DeveloperIQ ref may be reliable, but the other sources are not, as pointed out above, and on its own the one source is not sufficient to establish notability. A search did not turn up any additional RS coverage. Dialectric (talk) 02:43, 20 February 2014 (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.