Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/FreeCodeCamp

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 keep. Kurykh (talk) 00:42, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

FreeCodeCamp

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Part of a clear paid advertising campaign in which the only parts added were what the company advertises to clients and this is shown by the fact the only accounts heavily involved were the clearly COI-involved ones, and the sources only consist of business announcements, listings and mentions with searches instantly mirroring it, so there's nothing to satisfy our non-negotiable policies. In fact, not only is all of this what they would host at their own "About" page, the reception section is entirely sourced to their website. In fact, sources offered by user werr all clear announcements and listings ,still emphasizing WP:NOT. SwisterTwister talk 07:16, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep! - The page needs a cleanup, but I'm surprised they didn't have a page before. it's a non-profit referenced in almost every tech blog. Should be marked for improvement instead. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ArchitectureNerd (talk • contribs) 14:50, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep! - Disclaimer: I am the main author of this article and also a student of freeCodeCamp, hence admittedly anything other than neutral. But the article is clearly not part of a "paid advertising campaign." The fCC project is a nonprofit open-source organization. They provide free education. Even if the article is not great in its present state, the project's noteworthyness is, IMHO, easily proved by googling its name. You'll find a ton of trustworthy sources. --Jan Schreiber (talk) 21:00, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep! - Each claim in this proposal is false as of the date it was submitted, 27 January 2017. While the original article did appear to cite only subject sources, it has since been modified to include several noteworthy independent publications, not "announcements and listings." The accusation of a paid advertising campaign is baseless and is argued with no evidence. I don't know what a "reception section" is, per the moderator, but if they meant reference section, this claim is also false. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MDJAnalyst (talk • contribs) 15:29, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep! - This request for deletion is clearly very misinformed and makes me wonder if the author actually read the page or understands what Free Code Camp is. Free Code Camp has hundreds of thousands of users and is teaching people programming skills throughout the world, has existed for over two years, and is a totally not-for-profit organization. This request for removal is absolutely groundless and honestly very disheartening to see. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.126.69.64 (talk) 17:21, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note to Closer: The above user's first and only edit is today and to this Afd. CBS527^Talk 03:32, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep ~~Delete Fails WP:GNG and WP:NOT applies.~~ (Changed to keep based on new sources added to article.) This page (Free Code Camp) was speedy deleted in September, 2015 as G11, unambiguous advertising or promotion. This re-creation has the same problems. More importantly, the article doesn't establish notability. Article lacks multiple, significant coverage in independent reliable sources. The current sources in the article are not sufficient to meet this requirement. The current sources in the article consists of 8 references to the subject web site, an article about a software engineer with the web site, a Twitter message from the same software engineer, a listing in Recruiter.com, a listing in educationdive.com and an article in wire.com which is the closest to the requirements. An open Google search provide nothing new to establish notability. "Notability" is not synonymous with "fame" or "importance," and even web content that editors personally believe is "important" or "famous" is only accepted as notable if it can be shown to have attracted notice. No web content is exempt from this requirement, no matter what kind of content it is. Wikipedia is not a web directory. CBS527^Talk 03:32, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep ~~Neutral leaning weak keep~~. There's likely some COI going on here, but the article is still acceptably neutral in tone, in my opinion. Frankly I didn't find the older article at Free Code Camp to meet WP:G11 either. I tried to improve this new attempt a bit, and it still needs work, but I think the subject may be notable enough to warrant inclusion, if not just marginally. The thing is technical websites are not as attractive to the general public, and hence are neglected by major outlets and reporters. Take that as a poor argument for keeping, sure, but I'm merely speaking as a web developer myself (though I've never used Free Code Camp). You might compare this article with the current state of W3Schools (permalink), which is among the most notable coding schools and widely cited web references (not the most reliable though, but I digress). Overall it's a tough call, but if it were up to me I'd say it's worth seeing how this develops — MusikAnimal ^talk 05:05, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Scratch that. I'm uncovering more and more sources with more research (in particular KSL). I'm convinced the subject is notable and there is room for expansion — MusikAnimal ^talk 05:21, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As you mentioned it is difficult to find acceptable sources for websites in the main stream media. I feel the additional sources you added improved the article to help establish the notability of freecodecamp.com. The addition of the Forbes article and Inc article listing freecodecamp.com as place to learn code for free indicates that the site is notable enough. The KLS article seems to be more of an interview and may lean to being more of a primary source as opposed to being an independent source. Based on your additions I feel the page at least passes GNG and I'll change my !vote. CBS527^Talk 15:27, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I do not however think Quincy Larson is notable beyond founding this website, and that page should be redirected. Most of the sources regarding him can be adapted to expand freeCodeCamp — MusikAnimal ^talk 05:28, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with that. Thanks for your help! --Jan Schreiber (talk) 18:23, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep At the very least, I think this article should just be marked as "Needs Improvement." I like the comparison to W3Schools here. Its page has 1/3 of its citations to its own website. Currently, as I write this response, there are 16 citations on the freeCodeCamp page with 9/16 citations not having a direct relation to the website itself. In reference to the WP:NOT page, it poses the question "ask yourself what a reader would expect to find under the same heading in an encyclopedia" as one way to decide if a page should exist. freeCodeCamp arguably has earned its page in an encyclopedia. It has a worldwide presence on the social networking site Meetup (Google search results for Meetup and freeCodeCamp). As MusikAnimal has mentioned, it is true that websites with technical audiences are the ones that cover freeCodeCamp, including an established podcast (airing since 2009) The Changelog ("Free Code Camp with Quincy Larson"). However, web development is becoming a more widely discussed topic to more general audiences (Huffington Post on web development and Forbes article on future of web development). Disclaimer, I have used freeCodeCamp and have not and do not receive any financial benefit from them. Erictleung (talk) 09:00, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:10, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:10, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:10, 3 February 2017 (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.