Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Leetcode

Leetcode

[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)

By IP: I suggest this article be nominated for AfD since it does not show why this website is notable. The only reliable source here is the Business Insider article, which is not enough. 93.72.49.123 (talk) 22:59, 8 August 2023 (UTC) NotAGenious (talk) 13:27, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Internet, Software, and Websites. NotAGenious (talk) 13:29, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Inviting @93.72.49.123: to join the discussion. NotAGenious (talk) 13:34, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Practical note: this is actually a second nomination, it was previously deleted under the name "LeetCode" in 2016. If this article is kept this time, the article should be moved to LeetCode, which currently exists as a redirect but was previously deleted. Now, to notability: Sourcing looks worse than I assumed it would. Part of the issue here is that LeetCode is ubiquitous in tech blogs and online discussions, so there are many passing mentions: 500+ hits on Google Scholar, dozens on Google Books, etc. that make finding significant coverage challenging. There has been comparatively little coverage in the mainstream or business press (e.g. see the paragraph description of the product in the New York Times). There are articles like this one from Yicai Global that seems to me to meet WP:NPRODUCT, which is published by a subsidiary of Shanghai Media Group which would be unreliable for politics but may be reliable for business news (inferring from WP:RSP). Suriname0 (talk) 16:40, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - this is a well-known site which should have enough support from the current references and others available online such as https://www.dice.com/career-advice/coding-and-whiteboard-job-interviews-how-to-prepare. - Indefensible (talk) 17:17, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Dice.com is a commercial website. I do not see any editorial guidelines and there is no indication of editorial oversight. While it is possible to use it for citing content, it would not be considered reliable to establish notability. --CNMall41 (talk) 07:19, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not sure a single paragraph is enough to establish notability. 93.72.49.123 (talk) 08:14, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  That was just an example. Please do a search on Google Scholar for LeetCode: https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=leetcode. I find it difficult to believe the subject would not meet on notability. - Indefensible (talk) 15:04, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Finding it difficult to believe is not an argument for AfD. We present our opinions based on guidelines and policies. --CNMall41 (talk) 20:48, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

So to clarify, have you actually reviewed all 500+ results on Google Scholar? - Indefensible (talk) 22:06, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify, I have not. Am I required to? You presented an argument that Google Scholar contains the in-depth coverage required by WP:ORGCRIT (a guideline you called "imperfect"). It would be on you to present which specific Google Scholar articles meet that guideline. Your argument would be similar to me telling someone "check Google." --CNMall41 (talk) 22:29, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No, I just asked because you said that you ran a search and did not find enough acceptable sources, but you did not review all of the Google Scholar results. I just wanted to know and clarify. - Indefensible (talk) 22:46, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Products, and Computing. Suriname0 (talk) 18:11, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - References on the page and those I found in a search did not meet WP:ORGCRIT. --CNMall41 (talk) 07:20, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep - The company fails WP:NCORP; I was unable to find any in-depth coverage of the company at all. Is the product/site notable? I was only able to find some non-reliable blog reviews (e.g. 1, 2), but I'm also not aware of any site with editorial oversight that writes traditional "reviews" for sites/products like this. Instead, I notice a number of informal discussions of the product "where author describes personal opinions and experiences" in books from publishers like Wiley and Springer Nature (Apress). The two books cited plus the coverage in the New York Times and Business Insider together comprise significant coverage of the product and its use to meet WP:NCORP. None of the individual sources comprises more than a few paragraphs (and in the case of the academic sources usually 1-2 sentences); I would love to see someone uncover a source that discusses LeetCode in more depth relative to its many competitors. Suriname0 (talk) 22:12, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

So it fails NCORP but we should keep it anyway is what I believe you are saying. I am not sure what guideline would allow that other than WP:IAR. Also, none of what you described adds up to significant coverage so I must be misunderstanding your assessment of the notability requirements. --CNMall41 (talk) 22:39, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies for the lack of clarity: the company fails NCORP, but the product passes NCORP. The individual book sources, for example, contribute WP:SIGCOV product reviews. Suriname0 (talk) 23:31, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Leetcode is a popular site and should meet the WP:GNG at least based on user counts and general popularity. The article reads a bit like it is about the company behind the service, so it might benefit a bit from a bit of cleanup. Anton.bersh (talk) 20:59, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep LeetCode stands as a widely recognized and exceptional company, with a reputation that echoes through the software engineering communities of the US, India, and China. This website has left an indelible mark, aiding countless engineers globally in realizing their career aspirations and setting a benchmark within the industry. Despite their limited engagement in self-promotion, their prominence remains undeniable. A brief exploration would affirm this fact. Considering their extensive user base and substantial industry influence, they undoubtedly fulfill the criteria with distinction. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.47.209.29 (talk) 04:05, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hm. But is that what the reliable sources say? NotAGenious (talk) 05:52, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]