Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of GUI testing tools (2nd nomination)

:{{la|List of GUI testing tools}} – (View AfDView log{{int:dot-separator}} [http://toolserver.org/~snottywong/cgi-bin/votecounter.cgi?page=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_GUI_testing_tools_(2nd_nomination) Stats])

:({{Find sources|List of GUI testing tools}})

This article has been nominated for deletion before, in 2007 and the consensus at that time was that it should be deleted. The "criteria" of notability proposed in the talk page and in hidden comments in the article itself is that that each link should point to an already existing article on Wikipedia, but this does not establish notability. The list contains red links and none of the listed items points to verifiable sources or to sources that establish notability. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Victorianist (talk • contribs) 04:30, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

• Comment - I completed the nom, copying the rationale from the article talk page. Ansh666 05:15, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
• Keep Every entry in the list is notable and has an article. It follows many such lists across Wikipedia. It differs radically from the previous list which was simply a list of external links. There is no criteria for notability of lists of links that I know of and the subject itself, GUI testing tools, is notable. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:28, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

:: And I should clarify that the citation needed tags on each row are not related to whether the individual entry is or is not notable or reliably sourced simply that the attributes of each entry (testing system requirement, system under test requirement, GUI test, automation, and current version) is reliable information. Walter Görlitz (talk) 12:02, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

:: Further, the one redlink in the list pointed to an article that was deleted three days before this nomination. It has subsequently been removed. Oh, and :Testing Whiz is also presently up for an AfD, and :CubicTest, :RIATest and :GUIdancer could use references, while :AutoIt is just a mess because the original author is no longer supporting the project and at least two factions are fighting for control of the project, but that's not important for this discussion. Walter Görlitz (talk) 12:18, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

• Keep. There are certainly several notable GUI testing tools and I see no problem with this list. --Michig (talk) 06:02, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
• Keep - All listed tools have individual articles and most are sourced, WP:SOFIXIT applies!. –Davey2010 • (talk) 07:04, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 11:17, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 11:17, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

• Delete—If there was a WP:RS or two that had been cited to narrow down the scope of this list, I'd have a better idea of whether we're talking about embedded computing, kernel drivers, apps, high-performance computing, real-time computing, et cetera, et cetera. Each of these domains tend to have their own set of GUI-based testing tools, but the tols don't necessarily have anything else in common. That leads me to think that we're not going to be able to find any relevant WP:RS: if I'm a tech writer doing an overview of software testing suites, I'm not going to include testing tools for high-frequency trading programmers and tablet application programmers in the same article just because they both happen to have a GUI interface. Quoting Wikipedia:Viability of lists: {{tq|Some topics just aren't that viable because they would be either too broad or of little interest.}} I think that's the issue here. No objection to refactoring the article as List of testing tools for embedded computing, List of testing tools for the Android platform, etc., so long as WP:RS exists. Lesser Cartographies (talk) 06:51, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

:: The suggested scope would be both too narrow, of little interest and useless. Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:54, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

::The concern of niche variations can be addressed by splitting the table into several topical tables with the same page. FWIW this is just a list, not a comparison. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 18:50, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

::: I merged two separate table to make one several months ago. It really doesn't make sense to spit them. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:27, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

::::I only mean that this particular concern may be addressed by editing, and that it does not serve a basis for deletion per se. I have no opinion on splitting the table. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 10:08, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

• Keep: this list complies with WP:LSC and has no problems that could not be addressed by normal editing. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 18:50, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
• Keep. Notability guideline (a guideline) does not apply to stand-alone lists of Wikipedia articles, because WP:NOT (a founding policy with the power to override all guidelines and policies below it) says:

  Wikipedia encompasses many lists of links to articles within Wikipedia that are used for internal organization or to describe a notable subject. In that sense, Wikipedia functions as an index or directory of its own content.

  Even those {{tl|citation needed}} tags are redundant, as long as the associated article adds necessary sources. Of course, individual articles failing to prove their assertions can be deleted and their entries unlisted. Fleet Command (talk) 07:56, 7 August 2014 (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.