Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Testdroid


 * 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   no consensus. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:36, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Testdroid

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Does not meet WP:GNG or other notability guidelines. The associated references show trivial coverage of product by non-WP:RSes and I can't find any better sources. Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:58, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Added 3 relevant references. Vvhelppi (talk) 21:40, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 03:55, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 03:55, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 03:56, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Added 2 new relevant references + link to GitHub. Vvhelppi (talk) 6:20, 30 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep Added 5 new references to relevant sites. Significant coverage from various reliable sources. Vvhelppi (talk) 11:30, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep although could be a case of "too soon". Almost all the coverage has been in the last year. At first I was suspicious, since Vvhelppi (talk) seems to be a single-purpose account (any disclosed WP:Conflict of interest?). But I did find a fair amount of coverage to at least make an attempt to try to rescue. The article was not in style, since it tended to have inline urls and citations to web sites that did not even mention the subject matter of the article, many self-sourced blog posts, etc. so I removed some of those and added more independent ones. Not very deep but somewhat broad coverage. If consensus is to remove, at least try to userify and try again when the coverage from independent sources is deeper. W Nowicki (talk) 21:25, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 16:50, 5 August 2013 (UTC)




 * Keep Added a new reference to relevant site. --85.23.153.170 (talk) 18:34, 7 August 2013 (UTC) — 85.23.153.170 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger One ping only 00:49, 13 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete - Fails notability. Referenced cites include non-reliable and self-published websites.  Referenced cites also for most part fail either because the subject is only mentioned in passing/is not the topic or appears to be press releases straight from the company.  Caffeyw (talk) 07:35, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep thanks to the user who has put in good sources like these, 1, 2, 3, the subject seems to be notable enough. The rest of the sources may not be WP:RS and some are just passing mentions as the user above mentioned. They are excessive and not needed there, only a few of them are reliable enough to actually 'reinforce' its notability. -Ugog Nizdast (talk) 12:55, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment Existing references are primarily about the parent company raising funds and product catalogue listings. The articles added that focus on the product are mostly trivial. No way can this meet notability guidelines. Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:57, 14 August 2013 (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.