Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sourcegraph

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 no consensus. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 15:11, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sourcegraph

[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)

Way too many tags on this page for me to be comfortable marking it as reviewed - especially concerning is the possible UPE Taking Out The Trash (talk) 03:20, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and California. Shellwood (talk) 09:38, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Technology and Software. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:32, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. None of the sources offered are appropriate for establishing that the company meets WP:ORG. 331dot (talk) 09:34, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'd like the opportunity to rescue my efforts here. (Also, newb, so learning as I go.) First, I feel the UPE tag should be removed given I have addressed the issue on my user page and the other user who may have a UPE issue seems to have disappeared (and didn't make any substantial edits, as far as I can see). Second, I've prepared a source assessment table, which I will include below. I hope this will contribute to the discussion about sources. If the article passes muster on those two counts, even if only just, the remaining tags can be addressed so that the content is improved. Worktheclock (talk) 16:02, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Source assessment table prepared by User:Worktheclock
Source	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2020/10/sourcegraph-devs-are-managing-100x-more-code-now-than-they-did-in-2010/	Wikipedia's Reliable Sources page says "Ars Technica is considered generally reliable for science- and technology-related articles."	~ The article discusses the subject in the context of reporting on a developer survey Sourcegraph contracted Dimensional Research to do.	~ Partial
https://lwn.net/Articles/828748/	LWN.net is not listed in Wikipedia's Reliable Sources page, but it is generally considered reliable in its niche.	The article discusses the subject directly in detail.	✔ Yes
https://venturebeat.com/business/sourcegraph-raises-23-million-to-bring-universal-code-search-to-all-developers/	Wikipedia's Reliable Sources page says "VentureBeat is considered generally reliable for articles relating to businesses, technology and video games."	The article discusses the subject directly in detail.	✔ Yes
https://venturebeat.com/business/sourcegraph-raises-50-million-to-tackle-big-code-problems-with-universal-search/	Wikipedia's Reliable Sources page says "VentureBeat is considered generally reliable for articles relating to businesses, technology and video games."	The article discusses the subject directly in detail.	✔ Yes
https://venturebeat.com/business/sourcegraph-now-lets-enterprises-automate-large-scale-code-changes-across-repositories/	Wikipedia's Reliable Sources page says "VentureBeat is considered generally reliable for articles relating to businesses, technology and video games."	The article discusses the subject directly in detail.	✔ Yes
https://venturebeat.com/business/sourcegraph-plans-to-index-the-entire-open-source-web/	Wikipedia's Reliable Sources page says "VentureBeat is considered generally reliable for articles relating to businesses, technology and video games."	The article discusses the subject directly in detail.	✔ Yes
https://www.wired.com/2016/03/former-open-sourcers-ask-companies-pay-fair-share/	Wikipedia's Reliable Sources page says "Wired magazine is considered generally reliable for science and technology."	~ The article discusses the subject in the context of the Fair Source License.	~ Partial
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.

I would respectfully disagree with some aspects of the assessment above. The second and fifth sources mostly discusses the product of the company, not the company itself. The third and fourth are announcements of the raising of funds, which is a routine business activity. 331dot (talk) 16:25, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

However, if I compare this article to, for example, Grafana, it seems as though the standards for sources are not equally applied. Worktheclock (talk) 17:27, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure that's true, it's the nature of a volunteer project with people from all over the world working when they can. I can only comment on the article in front of me, as with us all. 331dot (talk) 20:48, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. But then it's fair for this article to be given the opportunity to be improved on by the community, as much as the Grafana article, or Loom (company), or Airtable are. Deletion denies it that opportunity. Deletion has been proposed based on the number of tags and the UPE tag at least can be removed, and notability seems to be a matter of opinion rather than consensus. Worktheclock (talk) 10:18, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This article has existed since 2017; it's had a chance. That's why we're here. Chances are not unlimited just because we haven't gotten around to every other inappropriate article yet, otherwise nothing could ever be removed from Wikipedia. Deletion is not permanent nor is it a permanent prohibition against recreation. If things change in the future(as they can and do) then this can always be revisited. Certainly the two of us(three if you include the nominator) is not a clear consensus, but it's worth having the discussion. 331dot (talk) 10:25, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Article fails WP:NCORP. Routine funding announcements, churnalism, a single review of their product, and a couple of brief mentions in an article about their Fair Source license does not show notability. - Aoidh (talk) 11:34, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have stated that I will not !vote in this discussion (see Talk:Sourcegraph) and I don't have any beef with any conclusions arrived at by evaluating the article against notability requirements. But I will note the following: Taking Out The Trash, that nominator statement is useless. "Has lots of tags" is not a reason for deletion. Please state a relevant deletion rationale, or desist from nominating an article for AfD if you don't have one. You are not required to binarily either mark as reviewed or delete. - 331dot, the article has not "had its chance" since 2017; it was in user space until I moved it to draft in September last year, and had not seen mainspace before January 6 this year. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 13:41, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, but my opinion as to the AFD remains unchanged, and you don't seem to dispute my evaluation of the sources. Please show where too much work needed to salvage(i.e. "too many tags") is barred as a reason to start a discussion. I'd also note that it's possible that the software merits an article but not the company. There seems to be some attempt to refocus the article in that way, I would be okay with that. 331dot (talk) 14:31, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please show where too much work needed to salvage(i.e. "too many tags") is barred as a reason to start a discussion I'm not seeing that in the statement; I'm seeing "this has too many tags for me to mark as reviewed", which is a different kettle of fish. And even "too many tags to salvage" would require some justification as to the specific perceived issues. I'm increasingly finding the handling of this article an illustration of bad practices in working with imperfect material, at sucessive levels. Suspect I'm usually not picking up on this stuff because I have no reason to feel ticked off on part of the creator. - Anyway, I'd better keep out of it as intended. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 15:02, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I appreciate the value of Wikipedia's processes but this article is not being given a fair chance to be improved on so that it meets requirements. I have found additional sources I would like to add; as 331dot notes, I'm attempting to refocus the topic; and I am happy to continue the discussion on the article's talk page. Worktheclock (talk) 10:15, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. Consider the possibility of draftification.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:20, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - the software appears to be marginally notable (I'm looking at IEEE Spectrum, Ars Technica and BI coverage). I'd support removing most of the coverage of the company that appears to originate from non-independent sources from the article, and treating it essentially as a semi-stub article on the software that needs improvement. PaulT2022 (talk) 09:22, 24 January 2023 (UTC) PaulT2022 (talk) 10:36, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Based on the coverage in news sources and books found by Google, it seems to pass WP:GNG. The number of tags on the page is irrelevant. The page is not avout a corporation, but about a software tool. My very best wishes (talk) 04:22, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:10, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. The source review table is nice, but most is from Venture Beat. Multiple, different RS would push this over into notability territory. This Ars Technica one seems ok [1] Oaktree b (talk) 15:33, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

but as with the Wired article, it's really only partially about the company. I'd like one more strong article about the company before changing the !vote Oaktree b (talk) 15:34, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The source assessment table above shows a clear pass of WP:GNG, which supersedes WP:NCORP. Frank Anchor 15:06, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No. GNG does not supercede NCORP, they're the same thing, just NCORP provides examples and better guidance on how to apply in the context of companies and products. It can't pass GNG and fail NCORP and vice versa. If you think it does, then you're not applying GNG correctly. HighKing⁺⁺ 18:05, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with the assessment above, as routine funding announcements are very specifically trivial coverage; the subject does not meet WP:GNG. - Aoidh (talk) 02:18, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I have reworked the article so that it is about the *product* and written from the standpoint of the product, not the company. I believe there are sufficient sources that meet NCORP criteria for establishing notability. Unless it gets reverted I believe a Keep !vote is now appropriate. HighKing⁺⁺ 18:05, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. I'm interested in seeing opinions after the recent "reworking" of the article to have a different focus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:55, 6 February 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.