Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Telerik Test Studio
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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. J04n(talk page) 18:00, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Telerik Test Studio (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
- (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:
- TeamPulse (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- OpenAccess ORM (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) ---Hu12 (talk) 16:11, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- 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. — raekyt 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]
- My naivety is not at issue here; please be civil and stay on topic. Any reviewer, reporter, or author could be bought off to produce a positive or negative bias to a source; one can use such reasoning to call into question any source. Reviewers can also be independent and simply enthusiastic about a reviewed product. Both quoted sources seemed to use the product in question; their prose does not read like a press release and there were some criticisms of the product mentioned in both articles. It is enough to convince me that these two sources aren't just press releases, unlike all the other sources I found. --Mark viking (talk) 22:56, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- These reviews are paid press packs. For example; The author, Peter Vogel, runs PH&V Information Services which provides "writing services to a variety of clients...". Its not independent of the subject and blatantly fails WP:CORPDEPTH. The other author is PR writer who is paid to go to Telerik product conferences. Either way these are not considered "significant coverage", nor does "press kit reviews" establish any sort of notability. --Hu12 (talk) 01:00, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- My naivety is not at issue here; please be civil and stay on topic. Any reviewer, reporter, or author could be bought off to produce a positive or negative bias to a source; one can use such reasoning to call into question any source. Reviewers can also be independent and simply enthusiastic about a reviewed product. Both quoted sources seemed to use the product in question; their prose does not read like a press release and there were some criticisms of the product mentioned in both articles. It is enough to convince me that these two sources aren't just press releases, unlike all the other sources I found. --Mark viking (talk) 22:56, 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]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J04n(talk page) 11:37, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Fails wp:notability, sources fail wp:corpdepth. Grillo7 (talk) 14:15, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JayJayWhat did I do? 01:32, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- delete The only hits I get for this particular facility are plainly promotional. If we had an article on the company, I would suggest merger, but apparently it's too obviously NN to get an article. Mangoe (talk) 17:30, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- 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.