Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Codewars

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. Randykitty (talk) 15:05, 12 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Codewars[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Declined PROD; concern was: not notable, coverage only in unreliable sources, except Forbes. wumbolo ^^^ 12:18, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Borderline. The Forbes.com article is not independent and not a reliable source, since it's an interview with a company ~~co-counder~~ co-founder written by a Forbes contributor. However, the PandoDaily article is okay, and the Opensource.com one might be okay. Opensource.com claims to have an editorial team, but they don't have media independence since they're commissioned by Red Hat. — Newslinger talk 13:51, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Sufficient notability to establish article. The Forbes references is a \sites subdomain for web hosting, and is not reliable. There is sufficient coverage in other small references to pass WP:SIGCOV. scope_creep (talk) 08:10, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Enterprisey (talk!) 06:07, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Enterprisey (talk!) 06:07, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:24, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep - Enough notability established to satisfy me. PCHS-NJROTC ^{(Messages)Have a blessed day.} 13:26, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I won't give a keep or delete argument here, but I will say this about the statement Newslinger made: "The Forbes.com article is not independent and not a reliable source, since it's an interview with a company co-counder written by a Forbes contributor."... Wait a minute, so just simply the facts that the article is an interview with a person from the company and it was written by a person whose not closely related to the subject (one of the three requirements for meeting WP:INDEPENDENT) and contributed the article to a source also not related to the subject and thus third party where, unlike a self-published source, you actually have to go through a very strict checking process to have your article qualify for publication in the source (gee, kinda like AN ACTUAL RELIABLE SOURCE, and BTW, whoever did the page Wikipedia:Potentially unreliable sources, it should've been obvious to you that articles from Forbes.com can't count as self-published because, for one, the contributors are having another party publish their piece with professional verification, something you even stated when you said "its authors are professionally vetted." It's not like Blogspot or Wordpress pages) makes the source unreliable and not independent?................. What kind of backwards logic is this?! editorEهեইдအ😎 20:53, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- @EditorE: To clarify my first sentence:
  1. The Forbes.com article is not independent because it's an interview with a company co-founder. This is because over 75% of the article was written by the co-founder (since the co-founder's responses are in his own words), and the co-founder is closely affiliated with the subject of the article (his company). This is why the source fails WP:INDEPENDENT.
    "This is because over 75% of the article was written by the co-founder (since the co-founder's responses are in his own words), and the co-founder is closely affiliated with the subject of the article (his company)." That's not how it works. A non-affiliated party still had put the interview together and was the one who worked to get the article onto a reliable source. Just because his words are quoted in the article, even it if is for "over 75%" of it, doesn't mean it's by him at all. It's still by the Forbes contributor, so saying it doesn't mean WP:INDEPENDENT is not correct. editorEهեইдအ😎 23:52, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    @EditorE: WP:IV considers the interviewer's questions a secondary source and the interviewee's responses a primary source. For the purposes of determining notability, the interviewee's responses are excluded from consideration. For this article, if you strip out the 75% of the text that came from the co-founder, the remaining text doesn't provide significant coverage of the company. All that's left is a passing mention. (To be honest, even if you include the co-founder's input, the article still wouldn't provide significant coverage of Codewars.) — Newslinger talk 01:42, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  2. According to past discussions at WP:RSN, Forbes.com contributors have a poor reputation for reliability. Forbes.com's chief product officer made some comments on the quality of the contributed content, and they're very telling. This is why the source fails WP:RS.
Additionally, for this particular article, if you click through to the article author's bio on Forbes.com, you'll see that he works in public relations, and articles are just his medium of choice. — Newslinger talk 20:50, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- "you'll see that he works in public relations, and articles are just his medium of choice." I have one basic question: So what? editorEهեইдအ😎 23:52, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  He's a marketer, not a journalist, and his articles are equivalent to press releases, which are not reliable sources. — Newslinger talk 01:42, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanamonde (talk) 15:30, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No indications of notability. Its a startup that raised funding - just like every other startup. This does not make it notable and Wikipedia is not a platform to promote a company/idea. None of the references meet the criteria for establishing notability and fails WP:CORPDEPTH and (more usually) WP:ORGIND, specifically they are not intellectually independent. Topic fails GNG and WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 15:49, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. PandoDaily article and Opensource.com article in my mind provide enough coverage. Enterprisey (talk!) 06:56, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I've decided to !vote keep because there's no direct connection between Red Hat and Codewars. — Newslinger talk 13:34, 10 August 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.