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 delete. Its sources that win an argument and this clearly is not met so the policy based argument is delete Spartaz ^Humbug! 09:10, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Janet Gregory (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)

Lacks in-depth, non-trivial sourcing to support inclusion into Wikipedia. reddogsix (talk) 06:10, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 06:18, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 06:19, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 06:19, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The state of the article is not a sign of the subject's notability (see WP:ARTN). The subject is the the co-author of two books (ISBN 0321534468 and ISBN 0321967054), a lecturer in software testing and development, and has published many articles. She easily meets WP:AUTHOR no. 1, 2 and 3. Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:23, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The article has been improved and secondary sources now support what I claimed, vis, that she is "a major contributor to the North American agile testing community" and is considered an "industry expert". Once again this is a case of an AfD being done based on the state of the article, which I stated was against WP:N, and the nom did not perform WP:BEFORE, and at least two of those discussing the subject did not bother to investigate whether the subject was or was not notable. Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:39, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That is a curious stement to make. Do you have evidence to back up your assertions about what people did or did not do to investigate notability? I would assume that given WP:AGF, evidence would be required to make such an assertion. If you are including me in this veiled comment, that I can reassure you that you are wholly wrong.  Velella  ^{Velella Talk}   20:05, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

None other than that they did not find the evidence that is obvious by searching. I'm sorry you think I'm wholly wrong. What did you do try to to prove that Gregory fails any notability criteria? You responded to my statement that she co-authored two books. You clearly didn't find the content that was added to the article. I was about to add similar, but only had time to comment when I responded here. People not doing BEFORE is becoming a greater problem with AfDs. When the nominators make statements like "non-trivial sourcing to support inclusion" it's clear they're basing the AfD on the contents of the article, not a search. So, sorry if I have tainted your character by claiming you didn't search for sources. Feel free to clear your name by indicating the searches you did. Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:23, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your apology reluctantly accepted. This is no beauty contest, I don't have to prove anything and I am perfectly content that both my name and reputation are unaffected by this slightly weird discussion. I do however, have concerns about what might, to an uninvolved observer, seem like the application of undue pressure through malformed arguments. I will assume good faith and premptively accept that you have no other vested interest here.  Velella  ^{Velella Talk}   02:03, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know what people will think about your malformed arguments. Perhaps any uninvloved observers can let one of us know. I'd be happy to clear the air for them. Seriously though Velella, I don't believe you. A assume good faith, but when you can't find sources that are clearly present, and you won't explain how you missed them, I can only concluded that you didn't bother to look in the same place that other editors who found those references found them. Walter Görlitz (talk) 07:25, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I supported prodding and AfD, prior to recent expansion (see this version [1]). Notwithstanding the subject's place in the agile testing community, I'm still dubious, especially given the lack of significant in-depth coverage about her. Many of the sources offered are press releases and announcements of lectures and seminars [2], [3], [4]. A separate concern is the increasingly promotional tone the article has taken during its expansion--the article's creator hasn't responded to questions about conflict of interest. 2601:188:180:11F0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 07:48, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - co-authoring two books does NOT meet the requirements of WP:AUTHOR and having struggled through the mass of references, I have to agree with the analysis of the firts IP written comment. The style of writing and the organisation of the article also makes it very difficult to be clear where notabilituy is supposed to lie. I don't believe that this is worth saving and WP:TNT is, I believe the best approach on the off chance that some other editor may make a more cogent and convincing article at a later date.  Velella  ^{Velella Talk}   08:48, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep This article was started as Janet Gregory is considered by many to be notable as a coach/trainer/speaker on Agile software development and testing. In addition to having co-authored two important books on agile software testing, she has authored several articles, worked with other notable agile software development figures like Robert C. Martin,Ron Jeffries and Kevlin Henney (who all have Wikipedia articles) and is a keynote speaker at many well known Agile and Testing conferences around the world. I've added some external links to interviewsUser:Mlvandijk
  • Of Robert C. Martin,Ron Jeffries and Kevlin Henney, at least two could use a lot better sourcing or they, too, merit a closer look. Also, WP:OTHERSTUFF. 2601:188:180:11F0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 01:39, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • OK, I get that. But please could someone constructively explain how to show notability without being considered an 'advert'. Am really just trying to understand. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mlvandijk (talk • contribs) 05:32, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Get away from it. This is an excellent example of an article created by a new user, who notwithstanding your denial, appears to have some sort of association with the subject. Uninvolved parties don't usually create this kind of article, nor have so much interest invested in their outcome. If the article is kept, a thorough copy edit will remove the bulk of it for unacceptable sources and promotional tone. 2601:188:180:11F0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 13:51, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • And anon editors don't act the way you do. What are you hiding? There is not one milligram of promotional tone that I see in it simply innuendo. Walter Görlitz (talk) 07:48, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
        • Walter Görlitz, a bit of AGF please--don't do the "hiding" thing; it's the kind of low blow that backfires. This is an AfD and spirited discussions are fine, but really. (The IP editor has nothing to hide but their identity; their long career of edits here speak to their character and love for the project well enough.) Mlvandijk, I haven't looked at the article yet but I want to tell you that someone being interviewed does not notability make ("Person A was interviewed by magazine Z so they must be notable" is a kind of original research); secondary sources do that. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 16:05, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
          • Thanks for the reminder. Here's one for you @Drmies: Person A was interviewed by magazine Z so they must be notable" is essentially what WP:GNG says. Specifically, if the topic is directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. Granted, significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material, so if it's a one-column interview, it doesn't help to meet GNG. If that interview was the only thing the subject had going, then that too would not help the subject to meet GNG. However, it's another point toward meeting GNG. Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:26, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
            • I'm not with you on that. Certainly an interview provides a good reason for looking more carefully, but interviews aren't in the GNG for good reasons, I think. If an interview comes with coverage (discussion), that's a different matter. Drmies (talk) 18:35, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
            • Multiple interviews in several different Software testing publications. I've also added source for the 13 "Women of Influence" article.Mlvandijk Mlvandijk (talk) 06:57, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete not enough work or coverage to meet the notability requirements for writers.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:33, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• It's an advert, and I may yet tag it as such. It's also a lack of good faith to accuse editors of hastily bringing this to AfD, when the sources are pretty uniformly awful. I've stated as much, but to focus on the pivotal claims, "a major contributor to the North American agile testing community" and is considered an "industry expert", here are the references: [5] and [6]; a press release with the phrase "Janet's programming background is a definite plus," and a blog. If that's the best we can find,
• Delete. 2601:188:180:11F0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 01:39, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Note to closing administrator: See also this draft for related issues [7]. 2601:188:180:11F0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 14:03, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. I would have considered speedy deleting this as it was clearly intended to be promotional, but in view of the fact that a lot of work has been done to find sources, I'm content to let it remain, subject to cleanup. Deb (talk) 14:19, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Quotes supporting notability, like a major contributor to the North American agile testing community seem to come from websites. Her books do not seem to be widely-held, e.g. the More Agile Testing is ~100 (WorldCat). Seems to have been written by a SPA, who is trying to promote Gregory and her authorship partner Lisa Crispin. Agricola44 (talk)
• Keep. I frequently hear references to Gregory's first book in the industry and I'd like for us to have a chance to find good published references that reflect this. Faught (talk) 15:36, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I frequently hear references is not a rationale for keeping an article, nor is it acceptable as evidence of notability. 2601:188:180:11F0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 04:50, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Two comments, it actually is a valid argument as the editor in question is a contributor to several software testing discussion groups. In specific, subjects such as Cem Kaner, James Bach and other important writers in the software testing world reference her work in their own publications, and certainly in these discussion groups. However, those discussion groups do not meet RS so I can see why they were not provided. However, she is a recognized expert. This is also the point being made by The second comment is who is this anon and what cards does the anon have that they are not willing to share by remaining anonymous? And that was assuming good faith about the editor. I don't really see why an editor in Old Lyme, Connecticut who is as prolific as this editor needs to remain anonymous other than a few. Walter Görlitz (talk) 07:47, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Articles on Janet Gregory and Lisa Crispin were started as their book "Agile Testing" is mentioned under Further reading on the Agile testing page but neither author had an entry on Wikipedia. Before starting the articles notability criteria were reviewed and concluded they were eligable: 1. their identities are verified on VIAF/Library of Congress/etc (see wikidata) 2. They have written books and multiple articles, either together, separately, and/or with other people in the industry with several different publishing houses / industry magazines, which provides multiple reliable sources. In addition, they are frequent keynote speakers at industry conferences. Reliable source of this are publications by Springer on XP Universe conferences which includes the.

There is no conflict of interest: I do not know either author personally or professionally, am not getting paid to write this (did spend a lot of spare time trying to improve the article; which is why I'd hate to see it deleted), nor does my employer have any link to subjects of articles (we sell their book, along with millions of other products). Unreliable sources have been removed and "promotional" content has been removed/rewritten (with help of others on this page: Thank you!). Interviews have been added as source (but content of interviews has not been added to page) If I find additional reliable sources, they will be listed here/added to wikidata rather than added directly to the article. For instance:

• The "Agile testing" book is cited in other publications (see google books among others) - for instance in "Developer testing" </ref>^[1]
• The "Agile testing" book is used by ISTQB^[2]

Mlvandijk

• Comment. I'm not so much concerned about COI here as the lack of demonstrated notability. For example, Walter Görlitz has answered criticism of testimonial with more testimonial and Mlvandijk observes the Agile Testing book is used and cited, which is true of the "average book". So far, most of the "keep" reasoning seems to be subjective. We do have more quantitative and objective conventions for cases like this, which is how often publications/books are cited, how many libraries hold copies, etc. I looked again and WorldCat shows 261 holdings for the Agile Testing book, which will be a decade old next year. This would be a good statistic for an esoteric/obscure area, but for a very popular, high-visibility topic like programming, it seems pretty average. (For reference, lots of other books in the very same area show double these numbers, e.g. Watkins' agile testing book at >500 or Lewis et al. testing at ~500.) I'm certainly not saying Gregory hasn't contributed, but, in the end, we seem to have websites selling her products and blogs that call her a major contributor to the North American agile testing community and an industry expert rather than authoritative RS and/or quantitative metrics saying these things. Agricola44 (talk) 15:01, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agricola44, in "So far, most of the "keep" reasoning seems to be subjective" I would replace "subjective" with "unproven", maybe. Drmies (talk) 16:06, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Point taken. I think that the "unproven" nature comes through better in the last sentence of my soliloquy. Agricola44 (talk) 14:56, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• • Agricola44, are these authors also frequent keynote speakers at Agile / software testing conference? Also, WP:OTHERSTUFF.Mlvandijk (talk) 06:57, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Speaking at a conference is completely irrelevant to an AfD like this because it is part and parcel of what they all do. It doesn't distinguish her in any way. Sorry. Agricola44 (talk) 14:56, 27 January 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.