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)
- Indeed. But then it's fair for this article to be given the opportunity to be improved on by the community, as much as the Grafana article, or Loom (company), or Airtable are. Deletion denies it that opportunity. Deletion has been proposed based on the number of tags and the UPE tag at least can be removed, and notability seems to be a matter of opinion rather than consensus. Worktheclock (talk) 10:18, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
- This article has existed since 2017; it's had a chance. That's why we're here. Chances are not unlimited just because we haven't gotten around to every other inappropriate article yet, otherwise nothing could ever be removed from Wikipedia. Deletion is not permanent nor is it a permanent prohibition against recreation. If things change in the future(as they can and do) then this can always be revisited. Certainly the two of us(three if you include the nominator) is not a clear consensus, but it's worth having the discussion. 331dot (talk) 10:25, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
- Indeed. But then it's fair for this article to be given the opportunity to be improved on by the community, as much as the Grafana article, or Loom (company), or Airtable are. Deletion denies it that opportunity. Deletion has been proposed based on the number of tags and the UPE tag at least can be removed, and notability seems to be a matter of opinion rather than consensus. Worktheclock (talk) 10:18, 18 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)
- Delete - Article fails WP:NCORP. Routine funding announcements, churnalism, a single review of their product, and a couple of brief mentions in an article about their Fair Source license does not show notability. - Aoidh (talk) 11:34, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
- Comment I have stated that I will not !vote in this discussion (see Talk:Sourcegraph) and I don't have any beef with any conclusions arrived at by evaluating the article against notability requirements. But I will note the following: Taking Out The Trash, that nominator statement is useless. "Has lots of tags" is not a reason for deletion. Please state a relevant deletion rationale, or desist from nominating an article for AfD if you don't have one. You are not required to binarily either mark as reviewed or delete. - 331dot, the article has not "had its chance" since 2017; it was in user space until I moved it to draft in September last year, and had not seen mainspace before January 6 this year. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 13:41, 19 January 2023 (UTC)