Deletion of Brainbrench (3rd nomination)

Comment: the article appears to be  territory. I'm not sure it can be expanded much based on the sources available
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion (WP:A7)

Comment: I've just addedhttps://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Brainbench&type=revision&diff=732194767&oldid=732142339 5 independent secondary , each of them addressing the subject in detail.  Four of them were cited in the 2nd AfD by
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Reliable sources (WP:RS)

Comment: Check out . I wouldn't mind seeing the article expanded, but this may not occur while it's also nominated for deletion
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions (WP:NOEFFORT)

Comment: Fails . The sources are trade magazines. Trade magazines tend to report even minor relevant news related to a specific area.   This fails  and in certain cases  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
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:CORPDEPTH||WP:AUD||WP:ORGIND)