Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/TestLink


 * 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. google searches are an inadequate way of establishing notability. Specific references would be required to rebut the delete arguments successfully. Spartaz Humbug! 21:53, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

TestLink

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

I can't find significant coverage for thsi software. Joe Chill (talk) 13:33, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions.  --  I 'mperator 13:49, 6 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep: I suspect that among the 538,000 hits on Google will be one or two of significance. I have used this software on real projects, and believe it to be one of the best of all the available "freebies" in this segment. Downsize43 (talk) 04:27, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Google hits do not show notability. Saying that the software is useful does not show it's notability. Joe Chill (talk) 13:30, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep: Testlink is currently the most popular Open Source Test Case management product. As a QA member in the tech startup industry for the past 9 years I think it deserves an entry. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jminne (talk • contribs) 19:32, 9 September 2009 (UTC)  — Jminne (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Please read WP:N. Joe Chill (talk) 20:27, 9 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Note: Here is something I never expected to find - an official IBM page (http://www.ibm.com/developerworks/library/ar-archtools/?ca=dth-grn) that describes (and appears to endorse) several open source products, including TestLink. Downsize43 (talk) 06:05, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

It is uncommon for open source software to have books written about it, so some other measures are needed. Some suggestions (which might fit some but not all of the software articles currently in WP) are: Please feel free to add to this list. To conclude, I believe TestLink meets at least 2 of the above criteria, placing it on a level footing with many products that have WP articles, such as Bugzilla. Downsize43 (talk) 12:05, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
 * TestLink Users: It is never easy to estimate the level of use and/or acceptance of a free software product. Here is a list of TestLink users that I found. http://www.teamst.org/phpBB2/viewforum.php?f=7&topicdays=0&start=0 Downsize43 (talk) 00:45, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. As above states, google hits don't show notability. I thought I found good sources, but they are actually for TestLink Ltd., a completely different company involved ikn voting machines. Sources I did find were PR wire stuff, i.e.. Martin Raybourne (talk) 04:13, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Wrong: The above link is also for another company (that offers a "laptop rescue and repair service"). There are many sources for the software under discussion, whether or not they establish notability. Please take the time to examine some of them before summarily dismissing this product. Downsize43 (talk) 11:10, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Then where are these sources? They aren't in the article, they aren't on the talk page, and none that meet the criteria have been presented here. My delete stands. Martin Raybourne (talk) 21:58, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment: WP:N has very little to offer that might apply to any software product. However I did find the following under Notability (organizations and companies):
 * "The "secondary sources" in the criterion include reliable published works in all forms, such as (for example) newspaper articles, books, television documentaries, and published reports by consumer watchdog organizations", with the example:
 * "Microsoft Word satisfies this criterion because people who are wholly independent of Microsoft have written books about it."
 * First of its type
 * One of the best of its type
 * Significant acceptance by the user community
 * Incorporated a significant improvement over its predecessors and/or competitors
 * Everything that the keep !voters are saying goes entirely against WP:N and have nothing that supports the belief. If this is closed as keep, it would be because of a head count. Joe Chill (talk) 12:27, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget  23:57, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.

Keep - this is great open source software we use on real projects, it's comparable to Test Director, only it's free and the market share of the tool is growing very fast, in the future more and more companies will switch to TestLink. Does it deserve to be in Wikipedia? For sure. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alaserm (talk • contribs) 15:00, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep I found 75 google news links Yes, google links alone don't alone make notability, but they are a good indicator. The users about wanting to keep, appear to be new users, who are not familiar with all of the myriad rules that we have. Industry publications: Data acquisition. Rubber World March 22, 2002 Testing Machines, Inc.     Ink World  July 1, 2001 Ikip (talk) 07:03, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Do you read deletion debates before you comment? In this case, have you read the comments by Martin Raybourne? Which of those 75 Google News hits are for this TestLink? The ones about hardware support, ATMs, or Motorsport are not for this tool but for unrelated companies. The article is also not for the data acquisition tool described in your two links: this software is developed by Testing Machines, Inc.. Google links are not a good indicator of notability if they are unrelated to the subject that is being discussed. Fram (talk) 13:40, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete because none of the given links are for this tool. Fails WP:N. Fram (talk) 13:40, 14 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment: It is painfully obvious that some of those in favour of deleting this article have little understanding of the extent to which the better open source software tools have been embraced by mainstream organisations, not simply because they cost less but because they are more useful than some high priced competitors. I recommend a quick read of some of the following WP articles to get a feel for the topic: Open source (and its linked articles and lists), Bugzilla, Mantis, MySQL and Subversion. Downsize43 (talk) 12:42, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Being used by many companies has no influence on the decision whether we should have an article on it or not. What we need are reliable sources discussing the subject, as explained in WP:V, WP:RS and WP:N. Deletion of this article does not mean that we have any opinion on the subject, whether positive or negative. Fram (talk) 14:34, 17 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete - I found this survey which indicates it is teh most popular open source test management tool but there is no indication of how reliable this information is. I tried searching for articles about testlink in various magazines such as Linux Journal and Linux World and turned up nothing.  I did find this mention in Dr. Dobb's Journal.  But this isn't enough to establish ntoability.  If somebody can dig up significant coverage in reliable sources about this software, then I'd have another look at my opinion. -- Whpq (talk) 16:24, 17 September 2009 (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.