Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ranorex GmbH

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 no consensus. Mkdw ^talk 18:55, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ranorex GmbH

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I turned this version of the page into a redirect because of poor sources that fail WP:CORPDEPTH, with the main source a pamphlet promoting Graz as a place of business. There's no indication that the company meets WP:CORP. The decision has been challenged on the talk page. The additional sources presented there are "market analysis reports" of $1,995 to $3,999 per piece, one of which doesn't seem to exist and another of which I doubt is reliable, leaving us with a Gartner report that apparently exists and discusses Ranorex in some detail (though it's unclear what it says; I don't have access). One good source is not enough to establish notability. Bringing it here for a discussion per WP:BLAR: Redirect to Ranorex Studio (unless that is also found to not be notable, in which case both should be deleted, but that's another issue). Huon (talk) 09:56, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep The gutting of the article by removing "lots of unreliably sourced, promotional content" was fine. What was left is enough for the company to meet WP:GNG. I reverted to the previous state (with the poor sources) for now, but I could see the article go back to the state listed above. Ultimately, the article should be expanded to discuss the company's products and anything else that can be reliably sourced. Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:57, 16 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I am willing to work to improve the article and sources, subject to COI editor guidelines. Jaking01 (talk) 11:30, 20 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor 18:42, 20 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Austria-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:44, 20 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:44, 20 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:45, 20 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The existence of analyst reports including from Gartner and Forrester meets the criteria for establishing notability. HighKing⁺⁺ 17:33, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

HighKing, I don't see Forrester cited in the article. Would you mind improving the page by summarizing what Forrester says about the company? Huon (talk) 09:44, 26 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Huon, it is probably better for subject-matter experts to add this type of material to the article. I simply applied the criteria for establishing notability - two sources required. Since two analyst reports from two different analyst firms are available, this topic meets the criteria. It is not appropriate for post analyst reports here but my Google searching has turned up more than enough. HighKing⁺⁺ 17:52, 26 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

HighKing, I have to disagree: The Forrester report mostly is a review of one specific product and thus could be used as a source for the article on that product, but doesn't provide much, if anything, about the company beyond the fact that they got bought, routine coverage that does not help establish notability per WP:CORPDEPTH. Does the Gartner report have anything more substantial about the company? I don't have access to that one. Huon (talk) 18:17, 26 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Huon Perhaps you're reading a different report? The one I have is entitled "The Forrester Wave™: Omnichannel Functional Test Automation Tools, Q3 2018, The 15 Providers That Matter Most And How They Stack Up". 24 pages long and each vendor gets approx 25%-33% of a page. It isn't routine. It is significant and independent. HighKing⁺⁺ 11:15, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@HighKing: It's a review of one specific product - the product, not the vendor, gets much of that third of a page. For some vendors, eg Microsoft, there's a little about company strategy and how that impacts the product, but not for Ranorex (beyond "they got bought" and some speculation about a possible future). I summarized here what it says about Ranorex Studio. What does it say about the company itself? I didn't see anything relevant. You're welcome to edit the company article and improve it, but I couldn't find anything useful in the report. As an aside, "independent" is debatable since Forrester apparently only contacts customers that have been proposed by the vendor, but that's not relevant here since even then too few Ranorex customers replied for Forrester to say anything about their reaction. Huon (talk) 11:27, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Idera Software, they recently bought it up. Szzuk (talk) 13:59, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 01:23, 29 October 2018 (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.