Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Silk Test

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 keep. (non-admin closure) Nnadigoodluck (talk) 20:41, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Silk Test (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)

Likely Fails WP:Notability Theprussian (talk) 11:18, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:21, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment There are at least some reviews of the previous incarnation of this software (QA Partner) - eg. InfoWorld, vol. 15, issue 36, 6 September 1993, pp. 72-73, 76, 78-79, 82-84 (product comparison of three automated tools); InfoWorld, vol. 17, number 30, 24 July 1995, p. 100 (half page first looks on QA Partner 3). However, the article needs serious work as it looks like a product catalog right now. Pavlor (talk) 13:32, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This is a short article. Addressing WP:PROMO is usually a matter of deleting stuff. Your assessment of this as serious work is an overstatement. ~Kvng (talk) 13:19, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free to rewrite the article... Nothing in this article is sourced by RS, so you should at least add some of the sources listed here. Then you could delete all advert-like content and rewrite the article in well sourced stub. Only then I will admit no serious work was needed. (note I´m not serious here) Pavlor (talk) 16:43, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Stickyminds, a software testing website that is run by American Society for Quality and has contributions from many well-known testing professionals, has three articles in its own listing on a search for the term, a Google search of the site shows two more. That in addition to the sources Pavlor found make it an easy run to do WP:BEFORE when you know where to look. Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:54, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per sources found by Pavlor. ~Kvng (talk) 13:19, 9 September 2019 (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.