I would ask that the Hungarian Testing Board (HTB) page is undeleted for 2 reasons:
1) If the HTB's parent organisation International Software Testing Qualifications Board is considered a notable organisation, it seems logical that affiliated national organisations such as the Hungarian Testing Board--like the neighbouring Austrian Testing Board--should also be considered notable.
2) The Hungarian Testing Board is a notable organization in its own right.
Let me expand on these 2 reasons:
Evidence for 1):
A search for the term 'ISTQB' in google books returns numerous hits:
Looking on the websites of Stanford and MIT (two of the World's leading computer science institutions), returns many links from faculty and students to ISTQB materials:
Here is a recent book published under the British Computer Society imprint written by two prominent members of HTB (one of whom is also an associate professor at Eötvös Loránd University). The HTB and the importance of ISTQB are given prominent mention in this book.
HTB organizes HUSTEF (Hungarian Testing Forum), which is one of Europe's most important software-testing conferences, featuring keynotes, presentations and workshops from leading figures in the software testing world (previous speakers have included: Janet Gregory, Rex Black, Emily Bache, Michael Bolton, and hosts of others). Hundreds of software-testing professionals attend this conference.
To conclude, I think the Hungarian Testing Board page should be undeleted because it is a notable organization both within Hungary and--through its work with the HUSTEF conference--around the World. Sldn37 (talk) 19:12, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse – not the world's greatest AfD, but the closer was within her discretion to close as delete. The sole keep !vote was no more than WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, so it was appropriately disregarded. The remaining two participants both raised notability issues that were not rebutted. That being said, if reliable sources sufficient to meet WP:NCORP do exist, I'd encourage the petitioner to draw up a draft and submit it through articles for creation. Be mindful, however, that WP:BRANCH sets a fairly high standard for subsidiaries of groups. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 23:57, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse again, not a great AfD, and there's an argument that a relist would be a better outcome in my mind, but there's not a single source presented here or in the article that makes me think deleting this was in error (the close itself was clearly okay - reviewing whether the arguments were wrong.) SportingFlyerT·C11:31, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse if this is an appeal of the close of the deletion discussion. If the appellant wants to submit a more complete draft for review, they should provide the reviewer with a copy of the deleted article so that the reviewer can verify whether the draft is better. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:55, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
Astha Agarwal – Speedy vacate close & undelete due to the since-discovered abuse of multiple accounts that constitutes the entirety of this discussion. Any editor is free to renominate at their own discretion. Daniel (talk) 23:03, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Both the AFD nominator and the only contributor to this AFD are sockpuppets of each other, and of another previous blocked user (as per this SPI). Therefore, neither of them should have been editing Wikipedia, and there was no discussion on this AFD from any legitimate Wikipedia users. I would suggest reopening this AFD and letting decent editors voice their opinions, or even overturning it to a speedy keep as per WP:DENY. I came across this from a discussion at the WP:Help desk, and although I have not seen the article before it was deleted, we shouldn't be letting sockpuppets get articles deleted. Joseph2302 (talk) 15:21, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Vacate AfDs should not be outcome determinative based on socked accounts, especially when the sock gets outed before anyone else votes. I also can't see the deleted article, so not suggesting this goes back to AfD - only way I wouldn't restore this if it's a copyvio. SportingFlyerT·C17:07, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Why don't we just ask the closer @Daniel:? In the circumstances, I'm sure he'll be willing to change that outcome without the need for a full DRV.—S MarshallT/C23:26, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Absolutely would have, considering both contributors are subsequently blocked. This one should have gone via my user talk page first, in a perfect world. Daniel (talk) 23:33, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not a frequent user of DRV, but was under the impression for some reason that a bot posted DRV notices to closers automatically. My mistake. Joseph2302 (talk) 11:15, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, which is a bit of a pity given the previous history. Fails WP:NACTOR based on references currently in the article — broken link and interviews, for example. A Google search [1] doesn't look promising for finding more. Just the usual IMDB stuff. Mike Turnbull (talk) 14:39, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
At DRV, we can always vacate the close and immediately send to a new AfD if it's an article that doesn't seem like it's going to pass notability guidelines. SportingFlyerT·C16:30, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Vacate per SportingFlyer, and endorse speedy close of this DRV if Daniel does so on his own initiative. Any NON SOCK user can go ahead and renominate for deletion if desired. Jclemens (talk) 17:13, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Vacate, that is behave as if this deletion discussion never happened. It came to light after the close that nobody supporting deletion in the discussion should have been editing anyway, so it's clearly impossible that a consensus of good-faith editors to delete was reached there. I don't understand why this was relisted rather than speedily closed when the nominator had been identified as a blocked sockpuppet. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:16, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
