Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Google Code Jam

Google Code Jam

[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)

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)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. ^Thanks,L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 13:40, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. ^Thanks,L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 13:40, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. ^Thanks,L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 13:40, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 13:58, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]
Keep The claim of notability is backed by the required reliable sources. Alansohn (talk) 14:38, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Alansohn: can you please elaborate which sources back the notability claim? wumbolo ^^^ 13:03, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:24, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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. This in turn means that articles/source may have written about this, solely because it carry the Google brand. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DexterPointy (talk • contribs) 13:07, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]