Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Phantom Automation Language
- 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. \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 00:10, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Phantom Automation Language (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)
Non-notable software product. — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 21:04, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. KuyaBriBriTalk 21:23, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Erm... I'm not sure I understand why the software is not notable? It has been around for nearly 10 years and was an early player in GUI automation. It is certainly no less notable than many other GUI tools listed in the List of GUI Test Tools page (RIATest, WindowTester, to name a few that are on Wikipedia, with non-sense articles at that). The double-post was purely accidental (I am somewhat new to posting in Wikipedia, so I did not know how to delete the other one), so I am not sure I see why there is a problem...Aeroslacker (talk) 21:33, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Can you find some independent sources to base the article on? Wikipedia content is supposed to be verifiable and based on sources independent of the article subjects. ChildofMidnight (talk) 21:46, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Hello, thanks for the feedback. I am not sure what qualifies as an independent source. To my knowledge, there arent any research papers on it. However, there is discussion about it in QA Automation forums (qaforums.com, for example), and it was 'published' in a magazine via a CD insert, but I am not sure either of those would be of any use as a reference. No magazine articles that I am aware of (other than advertisements) have been written. Also, and I dont mean to sound like I'm in the middle of a 'sibling' argument (but *they* get to do it! :-), but I dont see how the RIATest or WindowTester pages have any qualified sources, as well as many of the other products in the List of GUI testing tools section. Anyway, if you have any suggestions based on the info I just provided on how this can be an acceptable article, I would be glad to hear them. In my opinion (of course, I am the author), any list of GUI test tools is not complete without Phantom. Thanks for your thoughts! Aeroslacker (talk) 12:24, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is generally to be avoided in AfDs. --Cybercobra (talk) 23:26, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Hello, thanks for the feedback. I am not sure what qualifies as an independent source. To my knowledge, there arent any research papers on it. However, there is discussion about it in QA Automation forums (qaforums.com, for example), and it was 'published' in a magazine via a CD insert, but I am not sure either of those would be of any use as a reference. No magazine articles that I am aware of (other than advertisements) have been written. Also, and I dont mean to sound like I'm in the middle of a 'sibling' argument (but *they* get to do it! :-), but I dont see how the RIATest or WindowTester pages have any qualified sources, as well as many of the other products in the List of GUI testing tools section. Anyway, if you have any suggestions based on the info I just provided on how this can be an acceptable article, I would be glad to hear them. In my opinion (of course, I am the author), any list of GUI test tools is not complete without Phantom. Thanks for your thoughts! Aeroslacker (talk) 12:24, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Well, I'll put in my 'official' request to keep. Some external references were added, hopefully they are good enough to indicate 'notability'. They are certainly more references than the RIATest and WindowTester pages have. I noticed some articles have links to Google searches. I can add one if necessary, but I dont think that really helps the article. Any questions or thoughts, please let me know... Aeroslacker (talk) 15:23, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:03, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | Talk 00:06, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete No references to indicate notability. --Cybercobra (talk) 23:26, 6 July 2009 (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.