Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sourcegraph
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
- Sourcegraph (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Way too many tags on this page for me to be comfortable marking it as reviewed - especially concerning is the possible UPE Taking Out The Trash (talk) 03:20, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and California. Shellwood (talk) 09:38, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Technology and Software. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 12:32, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
- Delete. None of the sources offered are appropriate for establishing that the company meets WP:ORG. 331dot (talk) 09:34, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
- I'd like the opportunity to rescue my efforts here. (Also, newb, so learning as I go.) First, I feel the UPE tag should be removed given I have addressed the issue on my user page and the other user who may have a UPE issue seems to have disappeared (and didn't make any substantial edits, as far as I can see). Second, I've prepared a source assessment table, which I will include below. I hope this will contribute to the discussion about sources. If the article passes muster on those two counts, even if only just, the remaining tags can be addressed so that the content is improved. Worktheclock (talk) 16:02, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
| Source | Independent? | Reliable? | Significant coverage? | Count source toward GNG? |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Wikipedia's Reliable Sources page says "Ars Technica is considered generally reliable for science- and technology-related articles."
|
~ The article discusses the subject in the context of reporting on a developer survey Sourcegraph contracted Dimensional Research to do. | ~ Partial | |
|
|
LWN.net is not listed in Wikipedia's Reliable Sources page, but it is generally considered reliable in its niche.
|
The article discusses the subject directly in detail.
|
✔ Yes | |
|
|
Wikipedia's Reliable Sources page says "VentureBeat is considered generally reliable for articles relating to businesses, technology and video games."
|
The article discusses the subject directly in detail.
|
✔ Yes | |
|
|
Wikipedia's Reliable Sources page says "VentureBeat is considered generally reliable for articles relating to businesses, technology and video games."
|
The article discusses the subject directly in detail.
|
✔ Yes | |
|
|
Wikipedia's Reliable Sources page says "VentureBeat is considered generally reliable for articles relating to businesses, technology and video games."
|
The article discusses the subject directly in detail.
|
✔ Yes | |
|
|
Wikipedia's Reliable Sources page says "VentureBeat is considered generally reliable for articles relating to businesses, technology and video games."
|
The article discusses the subject directly in detail.
|
✔ Yes | |
|
|
Wikipedia's Reliable Sources page says "Wired magazine is considered generally reliable for science and technology."
|
~ The article discusses the subject in the context of the Fair Source License. | ~ Partial | |
| This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}. | ||||
- I would respectfully disagree with some aspects of the assessment above. The second and fifth sources mostly discusses the product of the company, not the company itself. The third and fourth are announcements of the raising of funds, which is a routine business activity. 331dot (talk) 16:25, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
- However, if I compare this article to, for example, Grafana, it seems as though the standards for sources are not equally applied. Worktheclock (talk) 17:27, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
- I'm sure that's true, it's the nature of a volunteer project with people from all over the world working when they can. I can only comment on the article in front of me, as with us all. 331dot (talk) 20:48, 17 January 2023 (UTC)