Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/BrowserStack (2nd nomination)

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 speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure)‎ --WikiLinuz (talk) 06:25, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

BrowserStack (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)

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

Fails WP:GNG and subject specific WP:CORP. --WikiLinuz (talk) 04:45, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Internet, Software, and Maharashtra. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:46, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: Per Dreamweaver CC: The Missing Manual, Selenium Framework Design in Keyword-Driven Testing, Selenium Essentials, Vue on Rails, and Automated Software Testing with Cypress (an entire chapter from CRC Press. SL93 (talk) 22:54, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Still fails subject-specific notability WP:CORP. Last source cannot be used to establish notability see WP:ORGCRITE, and other sources are not reliable. --WikiLinuz (talk) 02:08, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  It's software. Not a company. And WP:ORGCRITE does not say that such a source cannot be used. SL93 (talk) 02:41, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  And you're wrong about the reliability of the first source and third source for sure. The first source is from O'Reilly Media and the third source is from Packt. SL93 (talk) 02:44, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  O'Reilly Media and Packt aren't peer-reviewed. BrowserStack is a SaaS company, their "platform" offers various softwares/tools. --WikiLinuz (talk) 02:57, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  It's not required for book publishers to be peer-reviewed. They are not journals. Even WP:CORP doesn't say such sources cannot be used. You said that the CRC Press is reliable, but that is not peer-reviewed. SL93 (talk) 03:02, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  O'Reilly Media and Packt function as a primary source, providing instructions, tutorials and firsthand accounts. We'd need reliable, secondary sources.

  Also, in this case, subject-specific notability still fails because tutorials or books of primary works cannot be used to establish notability. --WikiLinuz (talk) 03:06, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Wrong. They are secondary sources because they are independent of the subject. "Primary sources are original materials that are close to an event, and are often accounts written by people who are directly involved." per WP:OR. There are no such guidelines about tutorials or first-hand accounts, and the books are not collections of primary works. SL93 (talk) 03:11, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I think there's a misunderstanding of how primary and secondary sources works. WP:CONTEXTMATTERS to evaluate whether a source is reliable for a particular discussion or not. Sources like tutorial and guide books are still primary sources because they are considered close to the event of using or developing the software, aligning with this definition. Instructional nature means the content is a firsthand demonstration ("event") of the software's capabilities, making it primary. And such tutorial or guide books cannot be used to establish notability anyway.

  If the subject is really notable, you wouldn't have to use tutorial books to establish notability. --WikiLinuz (talk) 03:26, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Nope. That is like saying software reviews don't show notability because the reviewer has to use the software to review it. SL93 (talk) 03:28, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I also have peer-reviewed journals that I found on Google Scholar - [1] and [2]. SL93 (talk) 03:14, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Both of them are low-quality, predatory journals. See WP:SCHOLARSHIP#7. --WikiLinuz (talk) 03:28, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  How are they predatory? You also said in another AfD that Springer Nature is low-quality which is nonsense. SL93 (talk) 03:29, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  How are they predatory? - Did you even tried to look at the journal these papers are published? Please don't merely copy-paste links from Google Scholar without looking into the merits of the journal.

  said in another AfD that Springer Nature - except I didn't. I wasn't talking about that source. Also, stick to the discussion in question. --WikiLinuz (talk) 03:43, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Please drop the stick and back off. We disagree. End it. SL93 (talk) 03:49, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Reuters, Tearsheet, Outlook India, VentureBeat, Economic Times, Forbes, Business Insider, TechRadar, and TechCrunch. SL93 (talk) 03:21, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  See WP:CORPDEPTH. --WikiLinuz (talk) 03:33, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Please stop pointing me to stuff. I have been on AfD for over 15 years now. That is not incidental trivial coverage. The idea that reliable sources that are only about the subject is trivial is laughable. SL93 (talk) 03:34, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  You made your point so please back off. Everyone at AfD can see our discussion and come to their own conclusions without a wall of text. It is considered rude to respond to every voter that disagrees with you and can be reported. SL93 (talk) 03:42, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, as mentioned above, news sources offer in-depth secondary coverage,[3][4][5] some of which is very difficult to imagine as any kind of PR.[6][7]. The Packt[8] and O'Reilly[9] sources are independent, reliable, tertiary sources.[10][11][12] Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 05:38, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - The breadth of coverage in multiple reliable and independent secondary sources is sufficient for a pass under WP:PRODUCT. The product, the software service, is notable. The sources cited do not demonstrate notability of the company itself, but per WP:PRODUCT, the company can be covered in this page. So it is a keep. Lots of discussion above on quality of sources, and I won't get too much into that. What I would have thought is better here, however, is to look at WP:SIGCOV in particular. Is the information in the sources sufficient to write a Wikipedia page about the subject? We might have fallen short on that question - except the multiplicty of sources covers for this. The article is possible, and it meets the notability guidelines for the product. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 06:19, 2 June 2024 (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.