Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brainbench (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 keep. Scott Mac (Doc) 00:42, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Brainbench

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

Contested prod. Spammy article about an IT certification company. No reliable sources, and though Google comes up with a lot of hits, nearly all of them are blogs. Delete. Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 15:11, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Unambiguous advertising; they were acquired by a renowned company that does not have an article. The page is just a price list of the services they offer. Google News finds only routine announcements about products and funding. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:26, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Also suggest protection against re-creation. Previously deleted at AFD, and this is a very persistent spammer. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 16:14, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Looks a lot like a pizza menu with a list of prices. I'll join you two for take-out. -- WikHead (talk) 16:49, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions.
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 16:10, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep maybe? I see 643 hits on Google News Archives. [1] I would think that at least a handful of those would be relevant and non-trivial enough to sustain an article. JBsupreme (talk) 18:17, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: per Google hits. - Ret.Prof (talk) 20:03, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- Pcap ping 20:29, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. -- Pcap ping 20:29, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- Pcap ping 20:29, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I'm not a reliable source, but take my word that's widely used in programming interviews in Eastern European countries, for better or for worse, mostly the latter if you want my POV. I'll see what sources can be found. Pcap ping 20:31, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- There are 230 hits in google books (!!) so this will take a while. Pcap ping 00:17, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Article about the company in Network World, another in InformationWeek, [2] internet.com Examining the value of Brainbench certifications TechRepublic, etc. Some of their certs are described in these books [3] [4] [5] [6] etc. Pcap ping 00:30, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. This is the best known certification company for technical fields. I question the value of what they provide (as someone who wrote one of the tests, as it happens), but we don't included companies to endorse their product, but because they are notable. Definitely cleanup any advertising tone to the article though. LotLE×talk 20:33, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. The fact that this was deleted in 2006 & 2007 should not come into play here. The company could easily have gained notability in the last 3 years. However, the article is basically advertising at this point, and would qualify for speedy deletion in my view. If it is kept, someone needs to cut it back to a small stub until some RS (and it seems there are quite a few) can be used to create a more neutral article. If it is deleted, I would be strongly opposed to create protection, there doesn't seem to be any need for that when the page was last deleted over 2 years ago. Joshua Scott (talk) 02:25, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- There are reliable refs going back to 2001 (actually the first link I gave), but those were not indexed by google books in 2007. Also, it doesn't help that they posted the prices on Wikipedia. I'm going to kill those. Pcap ping 07:30, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep - this is Brainbench. After removing the pricing information, the page on it is nothing to do with the ads as well. Btw, I just noticed that the Microsoft certification page has no references in notable sources except ones by the Microsoft itself, and the quick search confirms that there were just about 2M MCPs in the world in 2007 (I haven't got the latest data), while there is more than 6M Brainbench members now. I'd suggest to question the MCP page notability before questioning Brainbench. Honeyman (talk) 12:25, 8 February 2010 (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.