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.
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
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
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
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.) — Newslingertalk 01:42, 30 July 2018 (UTC)reply
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. — Newslingertalk 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. — Newslingertalk 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. — Newslingertalk 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.
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.
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
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
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
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.) — Newslingertalk 01:42, 30 July 2018 (UTC)reply
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. — Newslingertalk 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. — Newslingertalk 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. — Newslingertalk 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.