Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cleveroad

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 delete. Sandstein 15:01, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Cleveroad

[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)

It looks like a promotional article, I fail to see the company's relevance. Sannita - not just another it.wiki sysop 11:44, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Sannita - not just another it.wiki sysop 11:44, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:48, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sannita, The article was written from neutral point of view. Moreover, you can check earlier versions of this page, if it's better - we could recover it. --Moana122 (talk) 12:46, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Besides, most of company pages looks like promotional but but in fact they only contain information. If we have a discussion, then I will listen to your suggestions for improving this article and together we can make this article and Wikipedia as a whole better. --Moana122 (talk) 12:50, 18 February 2020 (UTC
Delete per WP:ORGSIG. @Moana122: this organization has not received widespread, significant coverage from reputable sources. --BonkHindrance (talk) 16:10, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The article is sourced to https://www.cleveroad.com and https://www.producthunt.com/posts/app-cost-calculator which is also by Cleveroad. There are no independent, reliable sources. It's not a reason to delete per se, but I will note attempts by the creator of the article to insert mentions of cleaveroad in articles like User experience design [1] and Python (programming language) [2]. Even if the content were entirely neutral and factual, there is intent is to promote the company. Vexations (talk) 19:57, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
To be fair, not all sources remain in the current version of the article. These are all the sources that have been used:

git-awards.com, clutch.co, clutch.co, clutch.co, github.com, nucc.no, cleveroad.com, cleveroad.com, einpresswire.com, goodfirms.co,

itfirms.co, producthunt.com and topdevelopers.co None of this adds up to significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject. Vexations (talk) 22:36, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
BonkHindrance I disagree with you. In the category Software companies in Ukraine other companies with a large number of advertising content are listed. (Eleks NIX) Companies use the same sources because they are trusted and respected in software development.--Moana122 (talk) 07:47, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Vexations About the sources - I researched that company has new mentions on forbes.com, iaop.org and others. But the community of Wikipedia drove me to a standstill. Due to the fact that only I add information to the article, this is considered a violation. And if I add something now, it will again serve against me. Due to the fact that in the English version of Wikipedia, only everything is deleted and does not help in any way with improving the content, I stopped writing articles. In Ukrainian Wikipedia, the community is more friendly and helps with content, and therefore I continue to supplement the online encyclopedia there. On the English Wiki, I don’t feel support. Are there any volunteers willing to help with the Cleveroad page? --Moana122 (talk) 07:47, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Moana122, If you have sources that meet our requirements, as explained in great detail at WP:NCORP then you should add them. Regarding forbes, please see WP:FORBES and the section on Forbes.com contributors. iaop.org is not an independent, reliable source that can be used to established that Cleveroad is notable. If you are an employee of Cleveroad, or have been paid to edit their article, read WP:PAID and make the mandatory declaration. If you have no conflict of interest, reply to the message on your talk page, and say so. Vexations (talk) 10:25, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Vexations, thank you for your reply. Here users gave advice not to make any changes "until I have clarified that I do not have a conflict of interest". That is why they drove me into a dead end, putting the article at the same time in 2 categories. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Moana122 (talk • contribs) 11:01, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Moana122, I don't see why you would be at a dead end. If you have no conflict of interest, simply say so. If you do, make the mandatory declaration. Vexations (talk) 11:27, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Vexations,I'm new to that and I thought that only after I am found not guilty can I edit the article. So then I start editing.

Delete - There's an older version of the article that does have more citations (I'm the one that removed them), but they are from clutch.co, which is a 'pay to be listed on our web site and we'll give you an award' style outfit, and git-awards.com, which is just an automated list that ranks by activity level, and a few other equally unselective and nonnotable 'awards.' Neither helps the case for notability, so the sources just aren't there for this company. - MrOllie (talk) 12:14, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
MrOllie, if you are interested in trusted sources, you could help make this page better but not only criticize it and deleting content. clutch.co has sponsored list and NOT sponsored. Please, check that those links were not sponsored. git-awards.com shows the statistics and Cleveroad contributions are highly appreciated in developers' community GitHub. --Moana122 (talk) 12:50, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Moana122, have you read WP:NCORP? The clutch sources are press releases. There is no way in which clutch is a suitable source. Also, please trust that some of us (I'm speaking for myself here) have actually looked for sources and found none that comply with NCORP. Absence of sources is not evidence of lack of effort; I don't think I need to list all the unusable sources I found and then go through them and point out why they're not good enough. I've done due diligence. If you have good sources, show us what they are. Vexations (talk) 13:10, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The three refs do not establish notability. The previously deleted content with refs was to minor awards, so ditto. Listing clients does not contribute to notability. David notMD (talk) 13:27, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The research on trusted sources was done and check the latest version of the article. The company has a great impact on programmers community, GitHub statistics it proves. Even though the company is quite young, it contributes to the social life of student programmers. This page is worthy of Wikipedia, like other similar articles about software development companies - Nix, Mirasoft, Nektony, Aricent, HYS Enterprise, etc. Hope that the decision will be fair. --Moana122 (talk) 09:13, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Moana122, I have nominated Nix, Mirasoft and HYS Enterprise for deletion as well. They are indeed not all that different from Cleveroad. I'm not sure yet about Aricent; there's better coverage for that topic. Vexations (talk) 14:59, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Vexations, I have listed these companies so that you can see the difference between a page that is of value to Wikipedia and pages that link only to your own site or pages that are in the Web Archive. And in general, I don’t understand why the Cleveroad page caused such a stormy condemnation, and nobody cares about those pages and nobody discusses them. --Moana122 (talk) 09:13, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG, WP:COMPANY. KartikeyaS343 (talk) 08:57, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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.