- 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. ansh 666 20:28, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
Google Code Jam
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
- Google Code Jam ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Subject of numerous minor mentions, but fails to gain any significant coverage in reliable sources, thus failing WP:NEVENT. A very few sources like [1] are semi-reliable, slightly promotional or don't give any general view on the Google Code Jam, instead barely focusing on a single edition of the competition or conducting an interview with one or more participants. WP:NORG can apply here with regards to the content of the sources that are promotional. There is no valid merge target, since it's organized by Google, and the Code Jam probably deserves no more than a sentence on the Google article. wumbolo ^^^ 12:39, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Thanks, L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 13:40, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Thanks, L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 13:40, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Thanks, L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 13:40, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh ( talk) 13:58, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
- Keep: sufficient Google Books results to justify having a stand-alone article, for example: The Innovator's DNA: Mastering the Five Skills of Disruptive Innovators by Jeff Dyer, Hal Gregersen, Clayton M. and Google by Virginia A. Scott. A major international competition; meets WP:NEVENT. K.e.coffman ( talk) 20:25, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
- Keep The claim of notability is backed by the required reliable sources.
Alansohn (
talk)
14:38, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
- @ Alansohn: can you please elaborate which sources back the notability claim? wumbolo ^^^ 13:03, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 10:24, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 10:24, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
- Comment - This is a very difficult one to decide on.
Clearly, this is not something which gets mentioned in common reliable mainstream media.
The sources writing about this, i.e. online technical magazines etc., may fail being classified as reliable & independent.
Websites, which does have articles about this, make a living of their traffic, and the brand Google is great for attracting visitors (generating revenue). This in turn means that sources may have written about Google Code Jam, solely because it carries the Google brand.
For something to be of encyclopedic value, then it must have an audience, aka. readers. It's not enough that someone what to write about something, in a (more or less) vain hope of attracting readers.
A further complication is cyclic referencing. Example: A writer working at magazine X, reads a press release from Google about Google Code Jam, and notice that WP got an article about it. The writer then decide to write an independent article about it, because the existence of a WP article is evidence (though not proof) of notability. Since WP editors can't generally tell why articles about a topic was created, it's easy to see how a cyclic state of notability gets to be.
Finally, as far as what Google Code Jam is, it's actually as much of a Google promotion as it is a real competition.
-- DexterPointy ( talk) 13:55, 20 July 2018 (UTC) - Comment. Unsure about this one. Yes, the article could describe the structure of the competition better. Nevertheless, GCJ is a major competition, and I would say it's fairly well-known among contest coders. That's not really a good argument for keeping it, of course. Another factor is that some of the coverage is probably just routine coverage, because this contest is related to Google. Enterprisey ( talk!) 06:39, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
DeleteMerge to Competitive programming, after going over the sources again. I don't think the competition has received significant coverage. If it were really a notable competition, we would've seen some articles focused on it in the technology-focused news media. As it is, we only have passing mentions in some books and the 2014 Mashable article, which looks pretty routine to me. Enterprisey ( talk!) 19:37, 23 July 2018 (UTC)- Changed to Merge after DexterPointy pointed out (heh) the better option. Enterprisey ( talk!) 19:49, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Giving credence to Coffman's Google Books' results, while the discussion seems to be tending towards delete, giving it another re-list
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Lourdes 08:17, 28 July 2018 (UTC)
Relisting comment: Giving credence to Coffman's Google Books' results, while the discussion seems to be tending towards delete, giving it another re-list
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Lourdes 08:17, 28 July 2018 (UTC)
DeleteDelete by Merge & Redirect - After a week of debating myself, then I'd say that reliable independent sources with significant coverage are simply near to non-existing (assuming I didn't screw something up in my research).
However, it likely would make sense to create a new article for the purpose of giving a more wholesome treatment of coding competitions, wherein this & the others could/should be included.
-- DexterPointy ( talk) 14:28, 28 July 2018 (UTC)- Currently we have
Competitive programming.
wumbolo
^^^
15:19, 28 July 2018 (UTC)
- Perfect! - No need to create a new article called
Competitive programming --
DexterPointy (
talk)
15:30, 28 July 2018 (UTC)
- It should probably be a merge target, then, since I suppose people might look for this competition on Wikipedia.
Enterprisey (
talk!)
00:43, 29 July 2018 (UTC)
- (ping to DexterPointy for comments) Enterprisey ( talk!) 01:19, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
- @
Enterprisey: I agree. In case that wasn't clear, I've changed "Delete" to "Delete by Merge & Redirect".
Note: Most of this article's parts are too long for doing simple copy & paste into Competitive programming, so some pruning/rewriting is needed. -- DexterPointy ( talk) 10:44, 31 July 2018 (UTC)- Sounds good to me. Enterprisey ( talk!) 19:47, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
- It should probably be a merge target, then, since I suppose people might look for this competition on Wikipedia.
Enterprisey (
talk!)
00:43, 29 July 2018 (UTC)
- Perfect! - No need to create a new article called
Competitive programming --
DexterPointy (
talk)
15:30, 28 July 2018 (UTC)
- Currently we have
Competitive programming.
wumbolo
^^^
15:19, 28 July 2018 (UTC)
- Strong Keep Very well known and publicised programming/coding competition with thousands of participants each year; references in notable journals, and various news and media sources. Clearly notable enough for it's own article.
Aeonx (
talk)
03:52, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
- Would it be possible to link one or two of the references you're talking about? I can't seem to find any. Enterprisey ( talk!) 04:57, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
- Keep A Google scholar search does indeed reveal numerous uses in some academic papers (though I have not done detailed examination of the quality of those papers). I can also find repeated mentions from RS. Best, Barkeep49 ( talk) 05:00, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
- Keep, further sourced, consistent coverage in sources for the past 15 years, subject passes GNG by miles/km. Sam Sailor 18:06, 5 August 2018 (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.
- 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. ansh 666 20:28, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
Google Code Jam
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
- Google Code Jam ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Subject of numerous minor mentions, but fails to gain any significant coverage in reliable sources, thus failing WP:NEVENT. A very few sources like [1] are semi-reliable, slightly promotional or don't give any general view on the Google Code Jam, instead barely focusing on a single edition of the competition or conducting an interview with one or more participants. WP:NORG can apply here with regards to the content of the sources that are promotional. There is no valid merge target, since it's organized by Google, and the Code Jam probably deserves no more than a sentence on the Google article. wumbolo ^^^ 12:39, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Thanks, L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 13:40, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Thanks, L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 13:40, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Thanks, L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 13:40, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh ( talk) 13:58, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
- Keep: sufficient Google Books results to justify having a stand-alone article, for example: The Innovator's DNA: Mastering the Five Skills of Disruptive Innovators by Jeff Dyer, Hal Gregersen, Clayton M. and Google by Virginia A. Scott. A major international competition; meets WP:NEVENT. K.e.coffman ( talk) 20:25, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
- Keep The claim of notability is backed by the required reliable sources.
Alansohn (
talk)
14:38, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
- @ Alansohn: can you please elaborate which sources back the notability claim? wumbolo ^^^ 13:03, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 10:24, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 10:24, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
- Comment - This is a very difficult one to decide on.
Clearly, this is not something which gets mentioned in common reliable mainstream media.
The sources writing about this, i.e. online technical magazines etc., may fail being classified as reliable & independent.
Websites, which does have articles about this, make a living of their traffic, and the brand Google is great for attracting visitors (generating revenue). This in turn means that sources may have written about Google Code Jam, solely because it carries the Google brand.
For something to be of encyclopedic value, then it must have an audience, aka. readers. It's not enough that someone what to write about something, in a (more or less) vain hope of attracting readers.
A further complication is cyclic referencing. Example: A writer working at magazine X, reads a press release from Google about Google Code Jam, and notice that WP got an article about it. The writer then decide to write an independent article about it, because the existence of a WP article is evidence (though not proof) of notability. Since WP editors can't generally tell why articles about a topic was created, it's easy to see how a cyclic state of notability gets to be.
Finally, as far as what Google Code Jam is, it's actually as much of a Google promotion as it is a real competition.
-- DexterPointy ( talk) 13:55, 20 July 2018 (UTC) - Comment. Unsure about this one. Yes, the article could describe the structure of the competition better. Nevertheless, GCJ is a major competition, and I would say it's fairly well-known among contest coders. That's not really a good argument for keeping it, of course. Another factor is that some of the coverage is probably just routine coverage, because this contest is related to Google. Enterprisey ( talk!) 06:39, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
DeleteMerge to Competitive programming, after going over the sources again. I don't think the competition has received significant coverage. If it were really a notable competition, we would've seen some articles focused on it in the technology-focused news media. As it is, we only have passing mentions in some books and the 2014 Mashable article, which looks pretty routine to me. Enterprisey ( talk!) 19:37, 23 July 2018 (UTC)- Changed to Merge after DexterPointy pointed out (heh) the better option. Enterprisey ( talk!) 19:49, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Giving credence to Coffman's Google Books' results, while the discussion seems to be tending towards delete, giving it another re-list
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Lourdes 08:17, 28 July 2018 (UTC)
Relisting comment: Giving credence to Coffman's Google Books' results, while the discussion seems to be tending towards delete, giving it another re-list
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Lourdes 08:17, 28 July 2018 (UTC)
DeleteDelete by Merge & Redirect - After a week of debating myself, then I'd say that reliable independent sources with significant coverage are simply near to non-existing (assuming I didn't screw something up in my research).
However, it likely would make sense to create a new article for the purpose of giving a more wholesome treatment of coding competitions, wherein this & the others could/should be included.
-- DexterPointy ( talk) 14:28, 28 July 2018 (UTC)- Currently we have
Competitive programming.
wumbolo
^^^
15:19, 28 July 2018 (UTC)
- Perfect! - No need to create a new article called
Competitive programming --
DexterPointy (
talk)
15:30, 28 July 2018 (UTC)
- It should probably be a merge target, then, since I suppose people might look for this competition on Wikipedia.
Enterprisey (
talk!)
00:43, 29 July 2018 (UTC)
- (ping to DexterPointy for comments) Enterprisey ( talk!) 01:19, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
- @
Enterprisey: I agree. In case that wasn't clear, I've changed "Delete" to "Delete by Merge & Redirect".
Note: Most of this article's parts are too long for doing simple copy & paste into Competitive programming, so some pruning/rewriting is needed. -- DexterPointy ( talk) 10:44, 31 July 2018 (UTC)- Sounds good to me. Enterprisey ( talk!) 19:47, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
- It should probably be a merge target, then, since I suppose people might look for this competition on Wikipedia.
Enterprisey (
talk!)
00:43, 29 July 2018 (UTC)
- Perfect! - No need to create a new article called
Competitive programming --
DexterPointy (
talk)
15:30, 28 July 2018 (UTC)
- Currently we have
Competitive programming.
wumbolo
^^^
15:19, 28 July 2018 (UTC)
- Strong Keep Very well known and publicised programming/coding competition with thousands of participants each year; references in notable journals, and various news and media sources. Clearly notable enough for it's own article.
Aeonx (
talk)
03:52, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
- Would it be possible to link one or two of the references you're talking about? I can't seem to find any. Enterprisey ( talk!) 04:57, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
- Keep A Google scholar search does indeed reveal numerous uses in some academic papers (though I have not done detailed examination of the quality of those papers). I can also find repeated mentions from RS. Best, Barkeep49 ( talk) 05:00, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
- Keep, further sourced, consistent coverage in sources for the past 15 years, subject passes GNG by miles/km. Sam Sailor 18:06, 5 August 2018 (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.