Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Typemock (2nd nomination)


 * 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.  MBisanz  talk 00:37, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Typemock
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This article was nominated once before and went no-consensus with very little input. The debate was probably complicated by the fact that the article was apparently created as part of a "pay us or we nuke your article" scam. The problem is that this is a very small private company (which does not appear to meet WP:CORP) and while it has superficial referenciness, the references themselves are not independent - all of them appear to be churnalism, just press releases published in the outer corners of the trade press. There's nothing substantial here, no real evidence of notability, and the article itself is written like an advert by a WP:SPA. Guy (Help!) 09:58, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 12:17, 24 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete - doesn't meet notability criteria for companies. --bonadea contributions talk 13:27, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete For the same reasons I gave in the previous AFD. This doesn't meet GNG, as neither do the vast majority of software libraries. § FreeRangeFrog croak 16:09, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete Website was widely spammed in 2008 - see MediaWiki_talk:Spam-blacklist. Little evidence of notability. -- Callinus (talk) 23:14, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:01, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:01, 29 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete unfortunately as my searches found no good coverage instead this, this, this and this. SwisterTwister   talk  23:28, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep very important for software developers, appearing in 500 technical books this should be GNG. in previous Afd This source looks reasonable to CorporateM and "The Art of Unit Testing" was confirmed by Colapeninsula. Typemock is not just a library it is a company that has products that generate Unit Tests. And what happened in 2008 is in internet years - ages ago - it is not relevant for this discussion Elilopian (talk) 13:21, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep stackoverflow is an objective software development community that demonstrates the relevance of Typemock in the computers world this is just one example. Typemock page on Wikipedia can hold educational value for cs students and developers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gikipedian (talk • contribs) 13:45, 31 August 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.