Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rational Performance Tester


 * 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 keep. But please add the soruces to the article. Geschichte (talk) 10:08, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

Rational Performance Tester

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Not notable. There are no independent sources Jcarlosmartins (talk) 09:22, 31 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions.  Spiderone  10:57, 31 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 11:55, 31 October 2020 (UTC)


 * , did you look for sources WP:BEFORE submitting this nomination? Bad sourcing is not a valid WP:DEL-REASON would you like to try another? ~Kvng (talk) 14:45, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I could not find any Wikipedia acceptable source. It seems like this is a non-notable article. Jcarlosmartins (talk) 10:29, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I presented three of those below, before you made this addition...? Looks like you are just going through the motions here. -- Elmidae (talk · contribs) 21:03, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Keep A rare treat for software articles: there are actual peer-reviewed studies that test and evaluate this package (e.g., , ). Looks like uncommonly good sourcing exists, it just has to be added to the article. -- Elmidae (talk · contribs) 18:50, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 06:54, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep - No valid reson given for deletion and no response from nom. ~Kvng (talk) 18:10, 7 November 2020 (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.