BrowserStack – Endorse but restore. Strong consensus here that the original AfD close was fine, given the material available, but new sources presented here are worthy of restoring the article. There is some feeling that this should be relisted at AfD. I don't see enough people arguing for that to make it part of this DRV close, but nothing stands in the way of somebody doing that if they feel it's appropriate. – --
RoySmith(talk)00:40, 27 January 2016 (UTC)reply
The following is an archived debate of the
deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Article was deleted as being promotional, or not notable. An earlier version of the article did seem promotional (and subsequently deleted), but it had since been re-created. The last version of the article (before deletion) didn't seem particularly promotional to me.
User:Bookish.krish also indicated this on the XfD page. The XfD mentioned notability and using as evidence the lack of third-party references, and that most references were based on press releases. However I'd like to dispute that claim. The article had no first-party references (only a minor citation to quote their response to the hacking incident). The article had one reference based on a press release (as citation for the in itself unnotable tech award). For awards we quite often use press releases as citation. Neither of these events (hacking incident, and tech award) is supporting notability of the subject. Though as coverage of the subject on Wikipedia, I think it made sense to mention those two events. Notability of the subject can be supported by the reference to
TechRepublic, and by various other publications. Here are a few (all in search results from the "Find sources AFD" XfD page template):
I could list many more if I go beyond the first page of search results. Recommending undeletion. Subject is noteworthy, and deleted content seems larger than a good stub, to be further improved upon. –Krinkle22:58, 19 January 2016 (UTC)reply
Keep Deleted Sigh. Things like this turn me off from participating in AfD. The discussion just went for almost three weeks and now that it's deleted the cry is "Wait! Wait! There's more to it! You all got it wrong!" Well, you certainly deserve kudos for coming to the rescue of something you firmly believe in. But having to dig long and deep to find passing references in highly technical publications suggests that this program may not quite meet
WP:WEBCRIT.
BlueRiband►01:13, 20 January 2016 (UTC)reply
@
Blue Riband: Sorry if this feels like a step backward after those weeks, I hadn't noticed it earlier. I feel you're being unfair though. The books are pretty technical indeed, but don't cherry-pick that. Links #1, #3 and #4 are simple and credible. I merely listed a few results from searches via "Find sources AFD". If one looks beyond pre-programmed searches and their top results, there are plenty of credible references that aren't technical in nature or merely passing mentions. As far as
Sauce Labs goes, here are refs from the same sources as that article:
CrunchBase,
The Next Web,
Mashable, and more. I'd also apply
Wikipedia:Notability (organizations) instead of
Wikipedia:Notability (web). Anyway, don't wanna argue. I'm just highlighting some missing details as the previous discussion seemed based on misinformation. –Krinkle03:12, 20 January 2016 (UTC)reply
3. if significant new information has come to light since a deletion that would justify recreating the deleted page;
Since Krinkle has provided "significant new information has come to light since a deletion that would justify recreating the deleted page", this is a proper DRV.
Endorse but restore per the significant coverage in
reliable sources. The subject passes
Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, though the AfD was correctly closed since except for one "neutral", the AfD participants unanimously supported deletion.
AfD participant Bookish.krish wrote, "Not sure it is being created by the PR team, as logically they would leave out mention of a security breach." It is clear that a promotional article would not discuss the security breach. Therefore, since the article is not promotional, I support directly restoring to mainspace.
Launched in 2011, BrowserStack has gained wide acceptance in the web development community. It has 30,000 customers and at least 5.2 lakh registered developers in more than 135 countries.
Customers include Microsoft, Xerox, Citrix, Github, eBay, Barclays, Adobe and Visa.
The Mumbai-based company helps developers visualize what their code will look like and how it will perform across browsers and operating systems.
The second major part of Modern.IE is Microsoft’s partnership with BrowserStack, a service that offers live, web-based browser testing through virtual machines. As part of the partnership you can use BrowserStack free for three months. After that BrowserStack’s regular pricing starts at $20/month for individuals.
Overturn on the basis of new sources. The actual AfD close would be hard to criticize - a difficult one I suspect, despite the apparent near-unanimous !voting, because of low participation and some ambiguous arguments (it's marginally notable but delete it anyway?). But there is no doubt that the sources identified in this discussion are sufficient to demonstrate notability per
WP:GNG. I'm not impressed by arguments that these sources "don't count" in some way because they are "overly technical" or "overly specialist". That has never been a valid argument against the notability of a topic. Thparkth (
talk)11:40, 20 January 2016 (UTC)reply
Restore or Relist Lots of new sources, but I've doubts about a lot of them. Some seem like PR, others are passing mentions. Probably above the bar (especially with the coverage of security issues), but certainly no objection to a relist if anyone wants to.
Hobit (
talk)
18:44, 20 January 2016 (UTC)reply
Endorse close, but restore per the sources provided above. Page restoration is justified per
WP:DRVPURPOSE #3 relative to the sources presented above. The topic meets
WP:WEBCRIT. Also, I don't view the article as particularly promotional in the state it was in when nominated for deletion (
diff), and some very minor copy editing could correct any minor promotional tone. This version of the article provides some information about how many paid subscribers and registered developers the site has, and information about an award received, but this provides a credible claim of significance. If the article lacked such content, then it could very well be nominated for speedy deletion per
WP:A7. Such assertions of significance are often mistaken as promotional, but without said assertions, A7 comes into play. That said, prior versions of the article have had issues with promotional content. North America100020:30, 20 January 2016 (UTC)reply
BrowserStack – Endorse but restore. Strong consensus here that the original AfD close was fine, given the material available, but new sources presented here are worthy of restoring the article. There is some feeling that this should be relisted at AfD. I don't see enough people arguing for that to make it part of this DRV close, but nothing stands in the way of somebody doing that if they feel it's appropriate. – --
RoySmith(talk)00:40, 27 January 2016 (UTC)reply
The following is an archived debate of the
deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Article was deleted as being promotional, or not notable. An earlier version of the article did seem promotional (and subsequently deleted), but it had since been re-created. The last version of the article (before deletion) didn't seem particularly promotional to me.
User:Bookish.krish also indicated this on the XfD page. The XfD mentioned notability and using as evidence the lack of third-party references, and that most references were based on press releases. However I'd like to dispute that claim. The article had no first-party references (only a minor citation to quote their response to the hacking incident). The article had one reference based on a press release (as citation for the in itself unnotable tech award). For awards we quite often use press releases as citation. Neither of these events (hacking incident, and tech award) is supporting notability of the subject. Though as coverage of the subject on Wikipedia, I think it made sense to mention those two events. Notability of the subject can be supported by the reference to
TechRepublic, and by various other publications. Here are a few (all in search results from the "Find sources AFD" XfD page template):
I could list many more if I go beyond the first page of search results. Recommending undeletion. Subject is noteworthy, and deleted content seems larger than a good stub, to be further improved upon. –Krinkle22:58, 19 January 2016 (UTC)reply
Keep Deleted Sigh. Things like this turn me off from participating in AfD. The discussion just went for almost three weeks and now that it's deleted the cry is "Wait! Wait! There's more to it! You all got it wrong!" Well, you certainly deserve kudos for coming to the rescue of something you firmly believe in. But having to dig long and deep to find passing references in highly technical publications suggests that this program may not quite meet
WP:WEBCRIT.
BlueRiband►01:13, 20 January 2016 (UTC)reply
@
Blue Riband: Sorry if this feels like a step backward after those weeks, I hadn't noticed it earlier. I feel you're being unfair though. The books are pretty technical indeed, but don't cherry-pick that. Links #1, #3 and #4 are simple and credible. I merely listed a few results from searches via "Find sources AFD". If one looks beyond pre-programmed searches and their top results, there are plenty of credible references that aren't technical in nature or merely passing mentions. As far as
Sauce Labs goes, here are refs from the same sources as that article:
CrunchBase,
The Next Web,
Mashable, and more. I'd also apply
Wikipedia:Notability (organizations) instead of
Wikipedia:Notability (web). Anyway, don't wanna argue. I'm just highlighting some missing details as the previous discussion seemed based on misinformation. –Krinkle03:12, 20 January 2016 (UTC)reply
3. if significant new information has come to light since a deletion that would justify recreating the deleted page;
Since Krinkle has provided "significant new information has come to light since a deletion that would justify recreating the deleted page", this is a proper DRV.
Endorse but restore per the significant coverage in
reliable sources. The subject passes
Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, though the AfD was correctly closed since except for one "neutral", the AfD participants unanimously supported deletion.
AfD participant Bookish.krish wrote, "Not sure it is being created by the PR team, as logically they would leave out mention of a security breach." It is clear that a promotional article would not discuss the security breach. Therefore, since the article is not promotional, I support directly restoring to mainspace.
Launched in 2011, BrowserStack has gained wide acceptance in the web development community. It has 30,000 customers and at least 5.2 lakh registered developers in more than 135 countries.
Customers include Microsoft, Xerox, Citrix, Github, eBay, Barclays, Adobe and Visa.
The Mumbai-based company helps developers visualize what their code will look like and how it will perform across browsers and operating systems.
The second major part of Modern.IE is Microsoft’s partnership with BrowserStack, a service that offers live, web-based browser testing through virtual machines. As part of the partnership you can use BrowserStack free for three months. After that BrowserStack’s regular pricing starts at $20/month for individuals.
Overturn on the basis of new sources. The actual AfD close would be hard to criticize - a difficult one I suspect, despite the apparent near-unanimous !voting, because of low participation and some ambiguous arguments (it's marginally notable but delete it anyway?). But there is no doubt that the sources identified in this discussion are sufficient to demonstrate notability per
WP:GNG. I'm not impressed by arguments that these sources "don't count" in some way because they are "overly technical" or "overly specialist". That has never been a valid argument against the notability of a topic. Thparkth (
talk)11:40, 20 January 2016 (UTC)reply
Restore or Relist Lots of new sources, but I've doubts about a lot of them. Some seem like PR, others are passing mentions. Probably above the bar (especially with the coverage of security issues), but certainly no objection to a relist if anyone wants to.
Hobit (
talk)
18:44, 20 January 2016 (UTC)reply
Endorse close, but restore per the sources provided above. Page restoration is justified per
WP:DRVPURPOSE #3 relative to the sources presented above. The topic meets
WP:WEBCRIT. Also, I don't view the article as particularly promotional in the state it was in when nominated for deletion (
diff), and some very minor copy editing could correct any minor promotional tone. This version of the article provides some information about how many paid subscribers and registered developers the site has, and information about an award received, but this provides a credible claim of significance. If the article lacked such content, then it could very well be nominated for speedy deletion per
WP:A7. Such assertions of significance are often mistaken as promotional, but without said assertions, A7 comes into play. That said, prior versions of the article have had issues with promotional content. North America100020:30, 20 January 2016 (UTC)reply