Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/BrowserStack

This discussion was subject to a deletion review on 2016 January 19.
For an explanation of the process, see Wikipedia:Deletion review.

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 delete. Sandstein 19:33, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

BrowserStack

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

Deleted once as blatant advertising, this new article was created by - guess what? - a "digital marketing" professional, aka wiki-spammer. It has superficial referenciness but the sources all trace back to press releases with the exception of a minor hacking incident of no real importance. In sum: this is a minor product which got a minor and very non-notable industry award; the main driver for having the article is, beyond any reasonable doubt, the company's PR department. Guy (Help!) 08:45, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral Not sure it is being created by the PR team, as logically they would leave out mention of a security breach. Also, they seem to be competition for Sauce Labs. Might be worth marking it incomplete, rather than writing off completely as advertising. Bookish.krish (talk) 08:37, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kharkiv07 (T) 00:47, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:03, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now and draft and userfy if needed as I also share the fact this seems marginally notable and acceptable but my searches also found only some links at Books and News so far, and there's nothing to suggest any better coverage. SwisterTwister talk 08:56, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 06:46, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - sources did not turn up enough in-depth coverage to show notability. In its current condition, highly promotional and would deserve to be deleted per WP:DEL4. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:46, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. Blue Riband► 18:20, 31 December 2015 (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.