Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Telerik Test Studio

Telerik Test Studio

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Subject fails WP:NOTABILITY. Article is one part of a massive Marketing campaign by Telerik Corp using WP:SPA advertising-only Sock accounts to create Spam pages. Has links but Relies on press releases, anon blog posts, paid reviews, product anouncements and merely trivial coverage or mentions which fail WP:CORPDEPTH. A google search shows only press releases and insufficient trivial coverage from non reliable secondary sources. Lacks any "significant coverage in independent reliable sources" (WP:GNG). Wikipedia is NOT a "vehicle for advertising".

I am also nominating the following related "product" Spam Advertising pages:

Weak Keep for primary product based on references and simple search resulting in some coverage, but it's not well-known. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:25, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. LlamaAl (talk) 16:40, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete First off we should bring up WP:SPIP which this thing seems to be clearly in violation of, then look at WP:NSOFT, which I can't find any evidence that it meets those criteria. — raeky t 16:55, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and stubify the Telerik Test Studio. Wow, that is a whole lot of COI; I can see the case for deletion just from blatant advertising. Two sources found that are not likely to come from press releases:

Both Visual Studio magazine and Tools Journal are independent, reliable publishers and both reviews are in depth. We then have multiple reliable sources, suggesting modest notability according to WP:GNG. Given notability of the topic, it would be better to stubify to remove the offending prose than outright deletion, according to WP:STUBIFY. No opinion yet on the other two candidates. --Mark viking (talk) 20:43, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

hmm, seems a bit naive to think you can't effectively pay for that type of coverage in one of those magazines - not sure it is entirely independent, looks like press pack coverage. ---- _nonsense ferret 22:10, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]