Talk:Comparison of GUI testing tools: Difference between revisions

Revision as of 16:16, 2 August 2014

Revision as of 16:21, 2 August 2014

Line 326:

: Notability applies to subjects, I'm not sure it applies to lists. [[User:Walter Görlitz|Walter Görlitz]] ([[User talk:Walter Görlitz|talk]]) 05:33, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

: Also, as I stated at the AfD page, the citation needed tags on each row are not related to whether the individual entry is or is not notable or reliably sourced simply that the attributes of each entry (testing system requirement, system under test requirement, GUI test, automation, and current version) is reliable information. It does not reflect whether the idea of such a list is or is not worthy of an article. [[User:Walter Görlitz|Walter Görlitz]] ([[User talk:Walter Görlitz|talk]]) 12:04, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

::I think that you're quibbling. The articles for each tools listed here will also be proposed for deletion. Hardly any of them meet the criteria of notability or verifiability. By <small><spanyour class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Precedingcriteria, a GUI tool must merely have an article, whether or not the article is a quality article. If that logic were allowed to continue, [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] commentwould addedcontain byboth garbage articles and garbage indexes. I was not trying to create a link farm. I was trying to add another link. I now see that you're right. Wikipedia should be held to a higher standard. A list such as this is useless because it's not complete and the tools that it does list are here just because they have an article about them, whatever their level of notability. [[User:Victorianist|Victorianist]] ([[User talk:Victorianist|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Victorianist|contribs]]) 16:1521, 2 August 2014 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->