Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Typemock


 * 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.  Sandstein  07:37, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

Typemock

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

While this product is known in the development community, neither it nor the company itself meet WP:GNG or WP:CORP. There is little coverage other than blogs and forums. A draft was repeatedly declined for those same reasons, and recently created in article space by an SPA with (I assume) a conflict of interest. § FreeRangeFrog croak 02:54, 19 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete This source looks reasonable, but is not enough alone. I don't object if better/more sources are found, but most of the current article looks to be original research. CorporateM (Talk) 21:18, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:05, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:05, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:05, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Keep This, this and this source are notable, as well as the Patent. Meets WP:CORPDEPTH as per sources presented in this discussion. It might be non-notable...only if you have never developed software. The software forums are flowing with posts on the company Elilopian (Talk) 12:33, 23 June 2015 (UTC) — Elilopian (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JAaron95  &#40; Talk &#41;  18:49, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment Patents and forum posts do not grant notability, and neither do those three sources. Since you are associated with the company, I would think you'd be able to come up with something akin to WP:SIGCOV but obviously that's not the case. § FreeRangeFrog croak 18:56, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment No need to talk with that style, the whole reason that this deletion came up is because someone is trying to make money out of this. See this e-mail we received "Thursday, June 18, 2015 7:04 PM [...] send the second payment [...] or I will have to take down the Typemock wikipedia page.". The company is of value to the development community. Simply stating that articles from Microsoft, and Visual Studio Magazine, do not grant notability is an understatement. These articles discuss the subject in detail (as do other articles found in the web including StackOverflow, JetBrains, NCover, blogs.msmvps.com with a simple google search), are reliable, are secondary and not written by typemock and they are independent of the subject. I think that the closeness of the threat email and the deletion consideration shows (I assume) a conflict of interest. Which will lead to knowledge not being free Elilopian (Talk) 12:33, 29 June 2015 (UTC) — Elilopian (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Thank you. I'll assume then that the article was initially created by someone you paid, against the Wikipedia terms of use and conflict of interest guidelines. Because your draft was repeatedly rejected... because your product does not meet the inclusion guidelines. There was a point where they could have removed it, by tagging it with db-user, and we have seen a spate of those lately (and unfortunately). However it's too late for that now - whether the article is deleted or kept depends on the consensus reached here, which is not subject to spammer blackmail. If you had treated Wikipedia with a bit more respect and observed our guidelines, perhaps your article wouldn't have been accepted, but at least you wouldn't have lost the money you paid. § FreeRangeFrog croak 17:51, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you. I have a lot of respect to your guideline, I have no idea why the author decided to choose those references. But to the point, have you noticed the following:

--Elilopian (talk) 09:16, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
 * 1) "The Art of Unit Testing"  what makes for a good isolation framework and how frameworks like Typemock work under the covers. This reference is used in Mock object so it is surely WP:GNG see also pdf of first edition and Whats new in the 2nd edition
 * 2) Typemock appears in wikipedia page List_of_unit_testing_frameworks this should also be  WP:GNG
 * 3) Typemock Isolator and Isolator++ appear in wikipedia page Unit_testing
 * 4) See these articles stop-designing-for-testability and what-does-easy-really-mean.html this is from the same reference supporting Mock object so it should be WP:GNG
 * 5) Article in drdobbs.com
 * 6) Article in mashable
 * 7) Article about application development in eweek
 * 8) One of many articles in infoQ
 * 9) Article in Italian magazine programmazione
 * 10) Article in NCover see wikipedia entry NCover
 * 11) Article in JetBrains DotCover see wikipedia entry DotCover JetBrains and this
 * 12) Article in SmartBear TestComplete see wikipedia entry SmartBear TestComplete
 * 13) Article in Microsoft see Microsoft
 * Most of those do nothing to prove notability. Wikipedia itself is not a reliable source. Self-published material produced by a company on their own website normally doesn't meet WP:RS. The relevance of the Mashable article is debatable. Other mentions are often brief: giving TypeMock as an example of a mocking framework rather than discussing it in depth - hence they are sources for mock object but not for TypeMock. Having said that, the Osherove book seems to have a more substantial discussion, and the Dr Dobbs article is explicity about TypeMock. I make that 1 or 2 solid sources, the jokey coverage in mashable, and brief mentions in Programmazione, eWeek, and InfoQ. Having said that, if the Osherove cite is as good as it looks, that might just meet WP:GNG. Colapeninsula (talk) 17:10, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, slakr  \ talk / 14:00, 7 July 2015 (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.