Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Education Ecosystem

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. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 23:14, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Education Ecosystem

[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)

Non-notable company, sourced with spammy sources. Routine coverage, fails WP:NCORP. US-Verified (talk) 10:00, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and California. Shellwood (talk) 13:16, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:24, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Non-notable. References are non-significant coverage and so fails GNG. Macktheknifeau (talk) 11:07, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The company is known among coders. I believe we can save the page by improving it. The main issue is that the company is known by multiple names: Education Ecosystem, LiveEdu, Livecoding.tv. There are articles available about it in other languages too. I recently added an article by Wired about it - https://www.wired.com/2015/08/the-strange-appeal-of-watching-coders-code/. Shakycatto (talk) 06:28, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete Article fails WP:NCORP also referenced UK Company Listing shows 1 employee and total assets of 250K as of Feb 2023 which further supports not WP:NCORP~~ MetricMaster (talk) 10:36, 23 March 2023 (UTC)This user has made 47 edits to Wikipedia. Their contribution history shows that 38 of these were to AFD discussions. The account exists for votestacking and has been blocked.[reply]

Struck content from confirmed sock above, per WP:SOCKSTRIKE. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:34, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Adding search for Livecoding.tv: Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL. AllyD (talk) 12:48, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Cryptocurrency and United Kingdom. AllyD (talk) 12:54, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Originally a WP:SPA article on a start-up. The article has subsequently been curated as the company has renamed and changed its proposition (coin offering, etc.) and recently shorn of its most obviously PR-based content. For the purposes of this AfD, it may be worth considering earlier versions and their references here [1] (though it does look predominantly announcement-based coverage)? AllyD (talk) 07:35, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles (talk) 12:56, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:30, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is a company therefore GNG/WP:NCORP requires at least two deep or significant sources with each source containing "Independent Content" showing in-depth information *on the company*. "Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. In plain English, this means that references cannot rely *only* on information provided by the company - such as articles that rely entirely on quotations, press releases, announcements, interviews, website information, etc - even when slightly modified. If the article doesn't *clearly* contain independent content then it fails ORGIND. Here, the references are simply regurgitating company announcements and have no "Independent Content" in the form of independent analysis/fact checking/opinion/etc. Even the Wired article mentioned above has no "independent content" which is in-depth and about the company, either commenting on users of the website (not the topic of this article) or relying on comments from the founders. I'm unable to locate a single reference that meets our criteria. HighKing⁺⁺ 11:06, 8 April 2023 (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.