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 07:59, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

CrossBrowserTesting[edit]

CrossBrowserTesting (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

Not notable. No significant coverage from reliable sources for the product itself (which should not be confused with the generic term "cross-browser testing"). Product is already mentioned on its company's article, SmartBear Software. Newslinger (talk) 03:56, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Newslinger (talk) 04:01, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Newslinger (talk) 04:01, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Newslinger (talk) 04:01, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The concept itself is notable. It should be moved to cross-browser testing and additional sources added. https://www.stickyminds.com/article/how-test-your-website-multiple-browsers-four-solutions-compared is one. It's also listed as a topic in several testing books. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:46, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. We already have an article cross-browser. This spam for a new product provides no useful content for that article. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:25, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge with article on cross-browser. Vorbee (talk) 07:56, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep / Comment
  The much bigger problem is that Wikipedia does not have articles supporting the realm of cross-browser topics.
   : Development and Testing are two immediate and easily spotted missed topics, both belonging to that realm.
  The existing Cross-browser article for that realm, which logically sit at the top of the perceived conceptual hierarchy, is crap - and worse: The Cross-browser article's history show no sign of it moving towards overall improvement.
  In short: This AfD is a bike-shed discussion, and I'm proposing to keep this bike-shed - it's not harmful, so why demolish it(?).
  (BTW: For those being both competent & interested, I just did a Google Search and found this, which unfortunately is a bit dated, but it is at least more elaborate than that).
  -- DexterPointy (talk) 12:58, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Deletion as a service The function of Wikipedia is not to advertise for non-notable products. Nothing here needs to be merged into the article we already have (in fact, such a merge would make that article worse). XOR'easter (talk) 16:16, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Tyw7  (🗣️ Talk to me • ✍️ Contributions) 14:39, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge summary into cross-browser. --Baerentp (talk) 14:00, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete and don't advertise this product on Cross-browser. power~enwiki (π, ν) 02:51, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Clearly fails WP:GNG. First source is a passing mention, next two are from the product website, another two are about the acqusition of the company and not the prouduct. The second last citation is a sponsored article, and the final one is a press release of dubious independance. Creator and only major editor has a WP:COI as an employee. Without any major mentions in the first (and only) few pages of Google results, this should fall under WP:SPAM — Alpha3031 (talk | contribs) 13:52, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete The concept of cross-browser testing: notable. This service product of the same name: not notable. Does not appear to offer any beneficial content to justify a Merge, even if the article for cross-browser testing (the concept) could use some attention. References are lists, PR and sponsored content. Fails WP:GNG. BoyRD (talk) 18:05, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom and Alpha3031, above all the article fails WP:GNG. Ifnord (talk) 20:33, 26 July 2018 (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.