Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brainbrench (3rd 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 No consensus, after a very full debate with plenty of relistings. As so often with articles about corporations, people who don't like articles like this don't like this article, and sources that some editors find entirely satisfactory fall well below the minimum standards for others.— S Marshall T/C 18:10, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

Brainbench
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This is an interesting case because the 1st AfD closed as Delete but the 2nd second was Keep, which I frankly am not seeing why this would've been kept; none of it is actually convincing at all for any substance and notability, my own searches have also mirrored this by finding nothing better. SwisterTwister  talk  22:38, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions.  SwisterTwister   talk  22:42, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions.  SwisterTwister   talk  22:42, 29 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete. Just corporate blurb. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:56, 29 July 2016 (UTC).
 * How does your opinion of "just corporate blurb" correspond to the deletion of this article per Wikipedia's guidelines and policies? Sorry, but your rationale is vague and open-ended, provides no guideline- or policy-based rationale for deletion, and could be stated about any company-related article on Wikipedia. North America1000 08:50, 30 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America1000 23:11, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America1000 23:11, 29 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Comment – The company's name was previously Tekmetrics.com. North America1000 23:13, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete Couldn't find any real coverage. The best I were able to find was a side blurb mentioned in three identical posts on small Ukrainian websites, by a Ukrainian IT expert noting some Ukrainian achievements, amongst which was being third most IT-certificate credited in Brainbench's "Bench Games Leaderboard". --Mr. Magoo (talk) 23:27, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Rescinded my delete. I guess it's able to meet the requirements through the ancient articles. --Mr. Magoo (talk) 14:01, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep. I've just added 5 independent secondary WP:RS, each of them addressing the subject in detail.  Four of them were cited in the 2nd AfD by Pcap but three of them had become dead links which I resurrected at archive.org.  Given these sources, this should be an easy keep and I hope those who've already !voted delete may reconsider.  Msnicki (talk) 08:07, 30 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Rescinded my delete. I guess it's able to meet the requirements through the ancient articles. --Mr. Magoo (talk) 14:01, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep. I've just added 5 independent secondary WP:RS, each of them addressing the subject in detail.  Four of them were cited in the 2nd AfD by Pcap but three of them had become dead links which I resurrected at archive.org.  Given these sources, this should be an easy keep and I hope those who've already !voted delete may reconsider.  Msnicki (talk) 08:07, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

 References  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Keep – Meets WP:CORPDEPTH per a review of available sources. See source examples listed below. North America1000 08:39, 30 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Network World
 * Information Week
 * Tech Republic
 * The Washington Times
 * Start Your Own E-Learning Business. Entrepreneur Press. (4 ¶)
 * InfoWorld (short article, 3 ¶)
 * New Straits Times (unable to access depth of coverage, per paywall)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — UY Scuti Talk  15:05, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep. Coverage sufficient to establish notability. --Michig (talk) 19:16, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete sources such as InfoWorld and "Start Your Own E-Learning Business. Entrepreneur Press" are insufficient to meet CORPDEPTH. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:40, 7 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Why and what do you mean by "such as"? It only takes two good sources to establish notability under WP:GNG.  Seven sources are listed above and you seem to have focused on the two of the weakest (never mind that we often keep at AfD based on even less than those particular two.)  Can you kindly review the entire list of sources above and explain why none of them qualify?  Let's start with just the first three.  Not one of those 3 qualifies?  Really?  An actual explanation of the deficiencies, not just a link to the guidelines would be helpful because I don't see it.  We have a responsibility to apply the guidelines fairly, from a neutral point of view.  If the sources exist to support notability, we have a responsibility to call it that way, even if we don't like the article, even if it seems spammy.  Here, we decide notability, not content.  Msnicki (talk) 13:52, 7 August 2016 (UTC)
 * While there may be a few acceptable sources, there's still not the amount actually needed for convincing and confident notability and substance. It's all, also, essentially still PR. SwisterTwister   talk  22:58, 7 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Exactly how many sources do think it would take "convince" you? What about these sources strikes you as "essentially still PR"?  Are you questioning their independence or reliability?  Or are complaining about the content of the article, which I'd have hoped an experienced editor like you would know is irrelevant at AfD.  Here, our only concern is notability.  Msnicki (talk) 00:55, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
 * It's not the matter of the number of sources, but the depth of coverage. If a notable author wrote a book on this subject, that would be sufficient. If there are dozens, or even hundreds, of trivial mentions, that is insufficient. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:07, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
 * The PR is everything, the information and style; news about funding and finances is particularly one that is always PR. SwisterTwister   talk  01:13, 8 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Could you kindly identify which, if any, of the first three sources listed above is about funding and finances? If you agree, as I expect you should, that none of the three fall in that category, then I ask again, can you identify specific reasons why you consider these three articles -- not some other hypothetical articles -- to be deficient?   I'm asking because so far no one has been able to give any reason at all, which I think is pretty telling about whether the delete !votes represent actual guidelines-based arguments versus driveby WP:IDONTLIKEIT opinions.  Msnicki (talk) 02:34, 9 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Pretty obviously none of the sources cited above is a trivial mention, so are you arguing that the hurdle for notability should be a book? If so, could you kindly cite absolutely anything in the guidelines that supports that view?  If not, then may I again ask exactly what you found deficient about the first three sources?  Msnicki (talk) 01:20, 8 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Pruning comment -- I just trimmed the article of uncited / self-cited "product brochure" content. and there's not much there -- two sentences. There's not enough to sustain an encyclopedia entry. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:12, 8 August 2016 (UTC)


 * This is purely a content issue, which is irrelevant here at AfD unless you can show that there simply is nothing else to report based on WP:RS, not that it hasn't yet been added to the article, which is clearly not the case. Msnicki (talk) 01:20, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Sources presented at this AfD are insufficient to establish "depth of coverage" -- for example Washington Times is an interview with the company CEO where he talks about funding. Both would be considered trivial mentions, as I understand it. With the current sources, I don't see the article expanding much -- there's very limited substance to the coverage. The company does not appear yet to be notable. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:30, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: Washington Times has been discussed at RSN and has been deemed not to be reliable. On other occasions too. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:39, 9 August 2016 (UTC)


 * How curious that you chose to avoid answering my question about the first three sources and chose instead to pick on a weaker source. Could that be because you could not find anything to criticize about the first three sources?  Further, may I point that you're flat-out wrong about the Washington Times article?  It is absolutely positively not an interview, it is an article that happens to include two (count 'em!) one-sentence quotes from the CEO.  But the article is bylined and the rest of the article is in the voice of the reporter.  That makes all but the two one-sentence quotes WP:SECONDARY.  But again, let me ask:  Never mind the other sources, what is wrong with the first three?  I'll help you out:  The answer is, there's nothing wrong with them.  Msnicki (talk) 02:45, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I looked at the other sources and they are equally not convincing; these are all trade publications reiterating company / product news. This is not enough to make a company worthy of note. K.e.coffman (talk) 21:16, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I'll started with saying that it's the quality of the sources, yes, they may be by actual journalists but it's the quality of depth itself or coverage that is still not substantial to the levels of becoming enough for either establishing a better article or better substances. Even so, simply because a news article may be authored by a staff journalist, that is not saying the news is still not influenced by mention trivial subjects such s overusing interviews and quotes by the businesspeople themselves. Also, like several articles, the appealing subjects they like to talk about are its funding or finances, because that's what it's about: a business also searching for investors by putting appealing information about that. I will also invite who has a long history with examining these articles. I will also note this about the current article, none of it is the substantial information to actually carry and support an article.  SwisterTwister   talk  02:59, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. North America1000 03:06, 9 August 2016 (UTC)


 * You've given me absolutely nothing testable.  All you've told me is sometimes a source isn't sufficient.  Okay, but we're not talking about hypothetical sources you don't like, we're talking these three you say you don't like and I'm asking what's wrong with them.  I don't think you can tell me because I don't think you have an actual reason.  You just don't like the article, you don't want to admit your nomination was a mistake, therefore the sources must not be sufficient and you don't think you need to explain why.  But none of this has anything to do any actual guidelines-based reasons.  The Network World article is roughly 1000 words (I OCR'ed and word-counted it), the Information Week article is over 700 words and the Tech Republic article is over 1200 words.  You're just not going to convince me we don't routinely accept less without at least telling me a lot more specifically what it is about these three articles you don't think is sufficient.  Msnicki (talk) 03:22, 9 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete Fails WP:CORPDEPTH. The sources are trade magazines. Trade magazines tend to report even minor relevant news related to a specific area.  This fails WP:AUD and in certain cases WP:ORGIND as well when they tend to reddress press releases. The Washington Times is a local source as well. The New Straits Times is a good source but doesn't elaborate much. This is nothing more than a run of the mill company offering standardised testing. More importantly, forget notability, this doesn't even have a credible claim of significance (I checked out the older versions of the article and I don't see any version which would pass A7). --Lemongirl942 (talk) 04:04, 9 August 2016 (UTC)


 * It's one thing to claim vaguely that sources fail some test in the guidelines and another to explain why. You've done the former, I don't think you can do the latter.  For example, WP:CORPDEPTH lists 12 categories of sources we do not accept.  Referring to the first three sources listed above, can you kindly identify which of those 12 categories each falls into?  I assert that none of the three falls into any of those categories and that you've listed WP:CORPDEPTH simply because it seemed convenient, not because you have even a prayer of explaining how it might apply here.  Your citatations of WP:AUD and WP:ORGIND amount to similarly lazy drive-by complaints.  WP:AUD asks that the sources be national or international media, which is exactly what the first three sources are.  WP:ORGIND asks that they must be independent, which they are.  Nowhere in the guidelines do have anything resembling a prohibition on the use of trade magazines as sources.  Anyone who's been to enough AfDs knows that's pretty typically the only sourcing we ever have for articles on technology-related products and we accept it all the time.  Msnicki (talk) 13:55, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
 * WP:AUD is not satisfied as the trade magazines (your first 3 sources) come under "media of limited interest". There is a reason why we have WP:AUD. It is quite easy for a company to be featured on a trade magazine because the area of focus is quite narrow - and it is very easy to hire freelance journalists who will submit articles to these magazines. Many of these also tend to redress press releases and pass them off, like your third source does. More importantly, software related companies tend to receive a much higher press coverage than other companies. If you compare this company with other similar companies, you will realise that the coverage has been woefully low. Your statement that "Anyone who's been to enough AfDs knows that's pretty typically the only sourcing we ever have for articles on technology-related products" is not correct. Mainstream sources cover software companies quite often and a notable company will usually have detailed articles about it. In fact, I have observed a relative abundance of mainstream sources for software related companies in comparison to others. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 00:00, 10 August 2016 (UTC)


 * That's your personal opinion and nothing more. It's been debated at Wikipedia talk:Notability (organizations and companies)/Archive 15 and there was absolutely no consensus to support your blanket claim that trade mags are excluded as "media of limited interest".  More to the point, I have to wonder exactly how you define limited interest.  Network World is an IDG publication with 1.6M unique visitors/month.  InformationWeek has a circulation of 220,000 according to our article.  TechRepublic is owned by CBS and gets 25.6M unique visitors/month..  To put that in perspective, the SF Chronicle only has a circulation of 223K.  This is "limited interest" only perhaps in the sense that you don't find technology interesting, not there aren't lots of others who are interested.  Msnicki (talk) 05:29, 10 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Yes, trade magazines have limited interest precisely because they are circulated to a specific audience. I am personally into technology - that doesn't mean every other person is. For your question about the influence, you can compare the Alexa ranks: Infoworld - 11,495, Techrepublic - 2757, while mainstream media is a lot ahead at SFGate - 913, NyTimes - 118, Washingtonpost - 181. We are looking at a case where the significant coverage is being almost entirely argued using a few sources in trade magazines. - surely, a notable company (and a tech company at that) would have received some significant coverage in mainstream media right? My position is clear - this is one of the numerous companies which do automated testing with nothing to show why this one is significant or better than the others. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 00:43, 11 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep. as far as I can tell, in this case the sources might be sufficient.The techrepublic article may be based to some part on a press release, but it is their own analysis. They say in so many words "its better than nothing. "  DGG ( talk ) 05:37, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment -- the article appears to be WP:A7 territory. I'm not sure it can be expanded much based on the sources available. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:35, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
 * You stripped down the article to two sentences (e.g. diff). There's plenty that can be written based upon what sources report. North America1000 01:07, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, based on what was in the article. Network World is a long article, but all of this (millions of registered users, exams administered, etc) are company claims. They cannot be independently verified as the company is private. That's why private companies are generally much less notable vs publicly-traded ones -- they are niche, up & comers, vying for funding, etc (see for example, this greenfield opportunity: dozens of entries and probably 90% non notable: List of collaborative software). These companies do a lot of PR -- but getting ink is not sufficient reason to create an encyclopedia article about them. They do not appear to have made a major impact on society at large or the technology space. So it almost always appears to be the case of WP:TooSoon and reliance on trade press coverage. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:16, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
 * In the diff used by NorthAmerica, the statement that I removed -- "the company has provided its services to over 5,000 corporate and over 6 million individual clients" -- was cited to www.brainbench.com, which a source with a conflict of interest in this case. Add: This was actually restored by NorthAmerica. Again, these are company claims. The rest is cited to about.com, hardly a reliable source. K.e.coffman (talk) 23:23, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Dane 2007  talk 22:46, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment to closer - I want them to compare from when I first nominated, the changes started and then the current version, none of which actually has contained substantially enough. Note how even the article was then changed, after I nominated, to actually contain product, services, clients and pricing information.... SwisterTwister   talk  23:08, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment to closer – Check out WP:NOEFFORT. I wouldn't mind seeing the article expanded, but this may not occur while it's also nominated for deletion. North America1000 11:04, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. <li> The article notes: "Mike Russiello and his colleagues aren't teachers, but they have given nearly 400,000 tests this year. Mr. Russiello runs Brainbench Inc., an on-line testing and certification company formerly known as Tekmetrics.com. Brainbench, in Vienna, will announce a $2 million equity investment today by Lycos Ventures, a $75 million venture fund spun off from the company that runs the popular search engine, Lycos.  Brainbench does independent testing that people can use to demonstrate their skills to prospective employers or bolster resumes. Employers can use the tests to measure the skills of workers already on staff.  Mr. Russiello also will announce the company's plans to add more tests to its Web site. Brainbench started offering tests and certification exams for information-technology professionals in December 1998. The company will add testing services for professionals in fields including finance, accounting, health care and human resources."</li> <li> The article notes: "There are many online courses available these days, but did you know that there are also online testing and certification services to prove your competency in a certain field? Brainbench.com at http://www.brainbench.com is an important resource to visit if you're a worker or employer seeking to objectively measure your own skills or those of your employees. Founded in 1998, the company has grown quickly and now has over 1,000 corporate customers and four million registered individual users.  I found the services offered by the site impressive and certainly useful. The tests being offered cover over 400 of today's highly in- demand skills, ranging from purely technical skills in information technology to soft skills in fields like office management.  ...  Brainbench tests are delivered online as Computer Adaptive Tests (CATs). Unlike pencil-and-paper tests, CATs enable test-takers to get immediate feedback on their performance. ... Another excellent feature is the Brainbench transcript itself. In it, you will find out what your score really means. There will be a detailed analysis of your percentile rankings and areas of strengths and also weaknesses, if any."</li> </ol>There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Brainbrench to pass Notability, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". Cunard (talk) 18:19, 20 August 2016 (UTC) </li></ul>
 * The other sources found by, Network World, Information Week, Tech Republic, and Entrepreneur Press, also provide significant coverage about the subject. Cunard (talk) 18:19, 20 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Comment to closer - The sources listed above are essentially simply PR and PR-like, either by being interviews with the businesspeople themselves or simply PR altogether, focusing with the company's funding and finances, something that is always expected to be mentioned with media, but in itself not actually something convincing for notability here. SwisterTwister   talk  03:48, 21 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Easily disproved as a misrepresentation of the sources. Not one of the first 3 sources mentioned above (Network World, Information Week, TechRepublic) even mentions the company's funding.  Msnicki (talk) 07:40, 21 August 2016 (UTC)


 * 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.