Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Qualitest Group (2nd nomination)

Qualitest Group

AfDs for this article:

• Articles for deletion/Qualitest Group
• Articles for deletion/Qualitest Group (2nd nomination)
• Articles for deletion/Qualitest Group (3rd nomination)

Qualitest Group (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)

This is just a mess. First off, obvious attempt to advertise is obvious, but could probably be trimmed to avoid G11 if done skillfully. There's some pretty close paraphrasing of this source, but again, of the type that could probably be excised.

Besides that, if you filter out "survey" (there are a few mentions of them in passing to reference a survey they've done) you're left with almost entirely blogs, and press releases and by the bottom of the first page of results you get things like this popping up only because someone who works there left a comment. Best things out there are probably this and this which are both still pretty advertorial. GMG^talk 12:47, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 13:17, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 13:17, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 13:17, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

• Delete - Nothing to demonstrate that the concerns from the first AfD have been addressed. WP:GNG still not met. - Galatz^Talk 13:30, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
• Delete Maybe a large outsourcing company, but still not notable. Would it be too soon to WP:SALT? Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:35, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
• Comment- Well, there's some additional sources now, among the best of them are this and this. Although at the end of the day both are fairly routine coverage of an acquisition. Other's like this are just not-so thinly veiled advertisements. Other's are just...not worth mentioning at all really. GMG^talk 19:06, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
  • I just correctly formatted the entries and most are database entries with no qualitative coverage. Others are redistributed press releases. Others are without a byline (no author nor location of writing) and so fail RS. Two are RSes but are too short to help contribute to WP:GNG. Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:58, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
• Comment- Aside from a relatively recently added Applause (software company), there seems to be a strong bias in Wikipedia against software testing companies if they are private (Cigniti is missing too) and pure plays. The format is now similar to Applause, although the acquisition history makes it much longer. There may need to be a disambiguity with another Qualitest, a pharma company. I think this QualiTest's write up can be cleaned up and saved, despite how it looked initially. Drome.Guy (talk) 20:28, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

No, there is a bias on Wikipedia against subjects that have not received sustained in-depth coverage in reliable published sources. GMG^talk 01:54, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

• Comment- By bias, I meant that Buy/Sell/Exchange news is not generated for private companies, so there is less high-quality data for the world (including Wikipedia) to review. I reviewed pure play QA companies in Gartner's Magic Quadrant and observed how private companies listed are less likely to be in Wikipedia -- this is a criticism of Internet data, not Wikipedia. SQS AG (now part of Assystem) seems to suffer as the original QualiTest Group posting here (1 reference - itself - SQS AG's really reads like a brochure), and Tech Mahindra had a mystery poster listing all 60+ countries with offices. I understand that I should not model my editing on those 2 examples. My quoting a founder (noted as such) was to give a little color which naturally is, well, colorful -- please remove if that's too editorial for Wikipedia -- I wanted to add some personality. Most companies listed there and in Wikipedia are heavy into history, acquisitions, and not-their-website references. I'm new to Wikipedia and welcome guidance from the pros here, as I try to learn what is proper and appropriate. Drome.Guy (talk) 17:42, 2 April 2018 (UTC)