Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cypress (software)

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 keep. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:03, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Cypress (software) (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)

No evidence of notability. Fram (talk) 13:45, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:47, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I have added some references. This is notable software. --Mfixerer (talk) 09:58, 26 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. That's just an opinion: you don't offer any evidence that it's notable. Moreover, the link to Selenium led to the element of that name. I have fixed it, but it doesn't suggest that the other information is reliable and has been checked. Athel cb (talk) 16:47, 26 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  I have added more book references so you can see it meets general notability guidelines Mfixerer (talk) 21:17, 26 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 16:33, 26 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Very strong keep: If it's got multiple books written about it specifically, it passes WP:GNG with flying colours almost by definition. This goes double for software, considering its intangible nature (particularly for modern, cloud-first software such as this). Modernponderer (talk) 22:22, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 16:54, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep It has a full-length book from Packt and is covered in books about software testing from O'Reilly and Manning. Definitely notable. Jfire (talk) 17:34, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, passes WP:GNG, notability has been demonstrated by Jfire. SailingInABathTub ~~🛁~~ 16:48, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep plenty of source coverage to pass WP:GNG, in addition to Jfire's book there are at least two more [1] [2] Hut 8.5 19:14, 3 January 2023 (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.