360:
Dobbs is an independent evaluator dedicated to software development/test. Citation #4 IT Central is an independent product review site (some of these reviews are quite lengthy). Citation #5 Gartner Peer
Reviews is an independent product review site. Citation #6 QA TestingTools.com is an independent QA focused portal that reviews many QA tools. Citation #7 Atlassian Marketplace, this is the plug-in you mentioned and there is a plugin available with a review from Atlassian. This is still independant and owned by Atlassian. User can view several plug-ins that do the same thing to compare. Citation #8 AscentialTest by Zeenyx Archived 2016-03-04 at the Wayback Machine by Bruce Armstrong, August 01, 2013 (an independent review article by a published author).
276:. I disagree. I'm not sure what exactly you want with regard to independent sources but there are several on the page--all from independent sources not affiliated with Zeenyx Software. Could you please provide a better reason than, "showed no additional, unconnected sources, so unfortunately it cannot be shown that this subject has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject and so it fails"? I don't understand exactly what you are looking for? Thank you for your time.
359:
Here are the citation explanations: Citation #1 Matryxsoft.com is an independent authorized reseller that sells multiple QA-related tools. Citation #2 This company is an independent authorized reseller that sells
AscentialTest, you may be correct about this citation and I will remove. Citation #3 Dr.
393:
page claims the site is a "crowdsourced knowledge platform" and no, that does not meet RS. Gartner may be a RS (although you do have to pay to be considered), but their peer reviews are user-generated and in no way reliable; one of the databases I discussed. qatestingtools.com again suffers from a
336:
and yet I have eight independent sources that tell a different story. Can you please explain what exactly you mean by your statement? What sort of web search are you doing and what are your expectations regarding "unconnected sources?"
388:
Resellers and
Atlassian Marketplace are not independent of the subject; they only make money when they sell the product. Dr. Dobbs is fine. IT Central is one of those unreliable sources as there is no author of the "review" and their
334:"My web search showed no additional, unconnected sources, so unfortunately it cannot be shown that this subject has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject and so it fails"
197:
232:) showed no additional, unconnected sources, so unfortunately it cannot be shown that this subject has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject and so it fails
158:
253:
191:
90:
340:
The companies that are selling plugins are not independent. The reviews are, but they're mostly brief, but are those reviews from reliable sources or blogs?
105:
328:"Significant coverage," "Reliable," and "Sources" definition. These are all from companies that may (or may not) have a relationship with Zeenyx but they
85:
78:
17:
131:
126:
135:
118:
212:
99:
95:
378:
291:
179:
57:
468:
40:
407:
345:
310:
261:
241:
173:
324:
Thanks Walter but I still do not agree. I have eight citations, all from independent sources that meet your
301:
I am looking for 1) significant coverage 1) in reliable sources 3) that are independent of the subject (see
53:
366:
279:
451:
434:
430:
411:
403:
382:
349:
341:
314:
306:
295:
265:
257:
245:
237:
169:
60:
464:
122:
36:
426:
219:
398:. The short review by Bruce Armstrong is a blog and not a RS. One RS. One source does not equate to
205:
114:
66:
229:
422:
447:
374:
287:
74:
29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
463:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
35:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
325:
302:
233:
185:
395:
421:. Walter has done an excellent review of the various sources, and made it clear that
443:
370:
283:
152:
425:
is not met. My own search has not turned up anything better; as such, delete.
394:
lack of an author, editorial board, and anything else that would make it a
390:
52:. Based on the source analysis, I do not believe this meets GNG. â™
362:
If I remove the citation #1, 2, 4, 5, 7 and 8 would that satisfy?
459:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
148:
144:
140:
204:
218:
43:). No further edits should be made to this page.
471:). No further edits should be made to this page.
252:Note: This discussion has been included in the
254:list of Software-related deletion discussions
8:
106:Help, my article got nominated for deletion!
251:
442:per Walter Görlitz's source analysis.
228:Contested PROD. My web search (read:
18:Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion
7:
402:, and so fails general notability.
24:
91:Introduction to deletion process
1:
452:18:10, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
435:06:47, 5 September 2021 (UTC)
412:01:57, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
383:20:38, 3 September 2021 (UTC)
350:19:05, 3 September 2021 (UTC)
315:18:59, 1 September 2021 (UTC)
296:18:31, 1 September 2021 (UTC)
266:18:22, 1 September 2021 (UTC)
246:18:22, 1 September 2021 (UTC)
61:07:33, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
81:(AfD)? Read these primers!
488:
461:Please do not modify it.
32:Please do not modify it.
79:Articles for deletion
369:comment added by
282:comment added by
268:
96:Guide to deletion
86:How to contribute
479:
385:
332:You keep saying
330:are independent.
298:
223:
222:
208:
156:
138:
76:
34:
487:
486:
482:
481:
480:
478:
477:
476:
475:
469:deletion review
364:
277:
165:
129:
113:
110:
73:
70:
48:The result was
41:deletion review
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
485:
483:
474:
473:
455:
454:
437:
416:
415:
414:
404:Walter Görlitz
354:
353:
352:
342:Walter Görlitz
319:
318:
317:
307:Walter Görlitz
305:for details).
270:
269:
258:Walter Görlitz
238:Walter Görlitz
226:
225:
162:
109:
108:
103:
93:
88:
71:
69:
64:
46:
45:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
484:
472:
470:
466:
462:
457:
456:
453:
449:
445:
441:
438:
436:
432:
428:
424:
420:
417:
413:
409:
405:
401:
397:
392:
387:
386:
384:
380:
376:
372:
368:
363:
358:
355:
351:
347:
343:
339:
338:
335:
331:
327:
323:
320:
316:
312:
308:
304:
300:
299:
297:
293:
289:
285:
281:
275:
272:
271:
267:
263:
259:
255:
250:
249:
248:
247:
243:
239:
235:
231:
221:
217:
214:
211:
207:
203:
199:
196:
193:
190:
187:
184:
181:
178:
175:
171:
168:
167:Find sources:
163:
160:
154:
150:
146:
142:
137:
133:
128:
124:
120:
116:
115:AscentialTest
112:
111:
107:
104:
101:
97:
94:
92:
89:
87:
84:
83:
82:
80:
75:
68:
67:AscentialTest
65:
63:
62:
59:
55:
51:
44:
42:
38:
33:
27:
26:
19:
460:
458:
439:
427:BilledMammal
418:
399:
365:— Preceding
361:
356:
333:
329:
321:
278:— Preceding
273:
227:
215:
209:
201:
194:
188:
182:
176:
166:
72:
49:
47:
31:
28:
192:free images
465:talk page
230:WP:BEFORE
37:talk page
467:or in a
423:WP:THREE
391:about us
379:contribs
367:unsigned
292:contribs
280:unsigned
159:View log
100:glossary
39:or in a
444:4meter4
400:sources
371:Mjt2470
357:Comment
322:Comment
284:Mjt2470
274:Comment
198:WPÂ refs
186:scholar
132:protect
127:history
77:New to
440:Delete
419:Delete
326:WP:GNG
303:WP:GNG
234:WP:GNG
170:Google
136:delete
58:(talk)
50:delete
396:WP:RS
213:JSTOR
174:books
153:views
145:watch
141:links
16:<
448:talk
431:talk
408:talk
375:talk
346:talk
311:talk
288:talk
262:talk
242:talk
206:FENS
180:news
149:logs
123:talk
119:edit
220:TWL
157:– (
54:PMC
450:)
433:)
410:)
381:)
377:•
348:)
313:)
294:)
290:•
264:)
256:.
244:)
236:.
200:)
151:|
147:|
143:|
139:|
134:|
130:|
125:|
121:|
56:â™
446:(
429:(
406:(
373:(
344:(
309:(
286:(
260:(
240:(
224:)
216:·
210:·
202:·
195:·
189:·
183:·
177:·
172:(
164:(
161:)
155:)
117:(
102:)
98:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.