Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/QualityGate

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. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:02, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

QualityGate

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

Of the ten references, nine are documents authored by the developers. The tenth is a paper defining the term "code smell", and does not mention the article's subject at all. I couldn't find any reliable sources covering the subject in depth. Psychonaut (talk) 14:55, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per WP:COMPANY. no coverage by independed soures to establish notability Krano (talk) 16:30, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:33, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:33, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

QualityGate article correction I have deleted the 10th paper (code smell) and I have expanded the list of references, so it has 11 general reference now. I have changed the picture too, which has made by me. RitaBartfai87 (talk) 11:31, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm afraid your changes haven't addressed any of the problems raised in this nomination. (In fact, it could be argued that they've made it worse, since now all the references are to documents authored by the developers.) In order for this article to be kept you need to show that QualityGate has been the subject of in-depth coverage in multiple sources entirely unaffiliated with the developers. Please refer to Wikipedia:Notability for further details on the sort of sourcing we require. —Psychonaut (talk) 12:53, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 01:05, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Seems like pure advertising. Tolstoyan at Heart (talk) 01:18, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

QualityGate article correction round 2
- I've deleted some of the references, but the others I think should be ok:
  - Tibor Bakota, Péter Hegedűs, István Siket, Gergely Ladányi, Rudolf Ferenc: "QualityGate SourceAudit: A Tool for Assessing the Technical Quality of Software": this paper was presented in a conference in Belgium, so it should be a reliable source.
  - http://www.qatestingtools.com/frontendart/quality-gate This is an indepedent resource, not made by the authors.
  - http://www.gitex.com/page.cfm/Action=library/libID=16/libEntryID=1454 This is also an indepedent source, not a paper written by the authors.
  - http://www.inf.u-szeged.hu/~beszedes/research/SED-TR2014-001-LOC.pdf: Althought it's made by the authors, this paper is free, so any wiki user can read it, which could be useful.
- And a question: can I refer to Hungarian online journal articles, or it has to be written in English?
- Sorry for these problems, but this is my first article, so I'm a very beginner in editing wiki pages. RitaBartfai87 (talk) 09:29, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Rita, there was no need to delete any of the references; in many cases it is acceptable to use primary sources to establish certain facts about a subject. The problem is that such references cannot be used to establish the notability of the topic, which is a prerequisite for having a Wikipedia article in the first place.

With respect to the specific references you list above, I'm afraid you overlooked the part where I said that the sources need to be "entirely unaffiliated" with the developers. This means that the articles and wikis produced by the developers are disqualified, even if they were published by a third party or include third-party contributors. Regarding the GITEX and QA Testing Tools sites, you are apparently conflating the publisher and the authors. The publishers of those sites may be independent of the developers, but the text on the pages you link to is word-for-word advertising copy from the QualityGate website. GITEX is a trade fair; it doesn't write its own copy for its participating vendors. QA Testing Tools is a software directory which also doesn't employ its own writers; vendors submit their own software descriptions. —Psychonaut (talk) 11:01, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I would add to the previous reasons that conferences made by people affiliated with a company/product/etc. do not magically become secondary sources because some third party pays for them. However, the author made a real effort to provide sources, so he should not be bitten too hard. Please also note that the use of non-English sources is acceptable if needed, although I personally disagree with that guideline. Tigraan (talk) 11:20, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The sources provided do appear to be primary upon examination. Insufficient coverage (no coverage that I could find) in reliable secondary sources. Nwlaw63 (talk) 13:51, 27 March 2015 (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.