Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Squish by froglogic

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. PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 02:44, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Squish by froglogic

Squish by froglogic (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)

No third-party references or claim that meets WP:GNG Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:01, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

• weak keep, pending further verification. Created by a newbie, so no independent refs. Happens all the time, big deal. Help them out. Did the nominator apply due diligence to question notability? Jolt Award gives a GNG notability, and certainly there exists a "3rd party ref" for this. (I've just added it) Staszek Lem (talk) 19:47, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

The Jolt Awards was added after nomination, but is it particularly notable? Also GNG indicates "received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" and a short blurb as part of an award isn't significant coverage from multiple sources so not sure it does meet it. I know that if a band has received an award, then it meets a different criteria. What criteria is there like that for GNG or software? I have no doubt that some day it may be more notable, but not presently. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:41, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Jolt is a respectable software industry award and its recipient more important for civilization than next best rapper, although receives much less buzz. Staszek Lem (talk) 22:17, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Let me restate my questions explicitely: Did you, with due diligence, searh google and to your best knowledge have found no significant independent coverage? Did you, as an experienced wikipedian, explain to a newcomer that s/he must provide independent references before stomping hard on the article less than 2 hours after its creation ? Staszek Lem (talk) 22:04, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

The article has been created in different incarnations before and the employee should know the drill. To that end, yes I have searched Google and no, I have no interest in informing the employee about the process after they cross-link it to several articles. They're not new to editing. They will have the duration of the AfD nomination to improve the article. Again, you're missing my point that one mention in an award doesn't make it notable per GNG. Obviously the award is new and previous deletion discussions didn't have that information. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:52, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

I am not aware of previos deletions. Why are they not posted here, as it is usually done? Staszek Lem (talk) 23:00, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

I do not know of any previous deletions, too (although I cannot rule that out). I *am* new to wiki editing, but I've read the discussions carefully and tried to follow the rules. Using google, a lot of 3rd party mentions can be found, e.g. this, this, this, this, or that. I'm sure there is much more to find. Using other software listed in wikipedia.org as reference, I'm confident Squish meets the notability criteria. It is an actual product which is actively maintained and developed and existing for more than 8 years now. As written in the article, it's used by more than 1,500 companies world-wide, including big players like e.g. Apple, EADS, Ericsson or Thomson Reuters. --TeleTeddy (talk) 07:33, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

My mistake. It was added to List of GUI testing tools many times.

Open wikis are not reliable sources.

"Used by 1500 companies" is not supported with a reference and how it's used is not defined. It may have been trialed by one person at the company or used by a small division within a larger company. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 07:51, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

The number is from froglogic's website: http://www.froglogic.com/company/index.php - maybe sth like "According to the developer's website, Squish is used by more than 1,500 companies world-wide." would be more appropriate? --TeleTeddy (talk) 08:54, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 15:43, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Teddy, the external links you listed are press releases authored by the company, so they are not actually 3-rd party sources. What the article needs is independent reviews. Staszek Lem (talk) 16:23, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

The Jolt award is from Dr Dobbs Journal... I'm not sure how much more notable you want. Obama's blessing? It's a software tool.198.144.209.8 (talk)

No Obama isn't qualified to judge what is and isn't good software. He uses a Blackberry after all. I am simply requesting multiple pieces of coverage as the general notability guidelines indicate. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:02, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Staszek, it was really just a quick google result. And you're right, some of the examples are only press releases, however, others are not (like the blog entry, or the qt developer site). Here is another example (a review from heise developer). This is an article from Parabuild on integrating Squish with their product. I am aware, that Squish isn't super popular, but then again, the end-users of this product are companies, so even if it will become the de facto standard in the GUI testing industry, it wouldn't receive as much attention as the latest IPad app. If that means that a wikipedia entry is not justified, then that's fine with me. However, looking at other wikipedia articles describing software, I got the expression that the low, but existing popularity of Squish would justify an article. --TeleTeddy (talk) 08:14, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Teddy, please review WP:RS. Blogs and other memoirs of random users are insufficient. Yes, it is not the latest pokemon, but I am sure every industry has it own professional publications. I myself am in a very narrow, several levels remote from end user, but vital industry. Still, it does have information outlets: conference proceedings, student textbooks, etc. Staszek Lem (talk) 17:10, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Teddy, that logic is faulty. Google Selenium. Google QuickTest Professional. Heck, Google SilkTest. They get sufficient coverage in reliable sources that disproves your theory. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:31, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Yeah well, as you mention it, the Silktest article seems to have no external reference at all - but far less discussion regarding deletion (as far as I can tell, I may have overlooked it). I take Staszek's suggestion to drop this subject. --TeleTeddy (talk) 18:20, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

• Request I am concerned that TeleTeddy is a single-purpose editor. Would you mind indicating your relationship to the company and product? Being an employee of the company or somehow affiliated with them doesn't negate your offerings or opinions, it's just important to know. If you're just an ardent fan of the product, that's fine too. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:29, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Likewise, is the person who nominated the article for deletion 3 hours after its creation affiliated with a competitor? 198.144.209.8 (talk)

My full disclosure: I am a software testing professional of more than 20 years who has used WinRunner, SilkTest, Squish, and Selenium for automated functional GUI testing. I do not now nor have I ever worked for a company that makes or sells automated functional GUI testing products. I monitor articles in software testing and several other areas on Wikipedia. If you want more information about me, check-out my profile. Anons from San Bruno, California with nasty attitudes are what exactly? --Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:02, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

As this talk is about whether a wikipedia entry should be deleted because of WP:GNG, can you please explain why my motivation for creating this article [quote] is important to know [unquote]? In this discussion, I am (obviously) biased, because I started the article in question. I wouldn't have done that, if I had felt it was not notable (enough). Any information beyond that seems to violate WP:APR. --TeleTeddy (talk) 07:55, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Since you demoinstrate familiarity with wikipedia TLAs, please review WP:COI. It will explain Walter's question in question. Per your "(obviously) biased", it does not follow from your "because". There are multitudes of reasons why people create and edit articles for wikipedia. However I would suggest both Walter and you to drop this subject, since such a small article obviously does not suffer from COI: no promotional hype, no unnecessary technical detail, no linkspam, etc. Staszek Lem (talk) 17:03, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:01, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

---

• Weak keep - Per [1], [2]. Topic appears to be meeting GNG. Northamerica1000^(talk) 08:59, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Northamerica1000^(talk) 13:13, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

• Keep Google search for the product name and the name of its company shows results. [3] It gets coverage in OSNews and LinuxDevices.com [4]. Dream Focus 07:13, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Comments Re-published press releases are coverage? --Walter Görlitz (talk) 13:45, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

They didn't just copy and paste the press released. They wrote their own articles based on information provided, for what these reliable sources considered to be something worthy of note. Most Wikipedia articles are just rewriting information found elsewhere. Dream Focus 15:02, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

From the first page of Google results:

• Press releases: [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] (the "About froglogic" section at the bottom is what gives these away) [12] (the full press release is available at http://www.froglogic.com/news-events/index.php?id=71.html they didn't include the about...)
• Likely edited press releases [13] [14]. They start exactly like the press releases above but don't include the about the company. They are certainly not feature articles. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:44, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

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.