667:
660:
630:
622:
615:
585:
577:
570:
540:
532:
525:
495:
487:
480:
450:
442:
435:
401:
394:
903:
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
326:
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
885:
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
858:
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
782:
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
Knowledge (XXG). Deletion is not permanent nor is it a permanent
327:
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.
996:- 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
710:
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.
904:
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. --
1158:
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.
783:
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.
1201:
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
854:) 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
935:- I appreciate the value of Knowledge (XXG)'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
206:
767:
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.
1031:. 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.
745:
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.
361:
163:
286:
262:
258:
290:
1081:
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
200:
95:
625:
Knowledge (XXG)'s
Reliable Sources page says "VentureBeat is considered generally reliable for articles relating to businesses, technology and video games."
580:
Knowledge (XXG)'s
Reliable Sources page says "VentureBeat is considered generally reliable for articles relating to businesses, technology and video games."
535:
Knowledge (XXG)'s
Reliable Sources page says "VentureBeat is considered generally reliable for articles relating to businesses, technology and video games."
490:
Knowledge (XXG)'s
Reliable Sources page says "VentureBeat is considered generally reliable for articles relating to businesses, technology and video games."
820:
562:
110:
1097:
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
282:
254:
816:
517:
813:
472:
1082:
386:
692:
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using
759:
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
404:
Knowledge (XXG)'s
Reliable Sources page says "Ars Technica is considered generally reliable for science- and technology-related articles."
1172:
I disagree with the assessment above, as routine funding announcements are very specifically trivial coverage; the subject does not meet
412:
The article discusses the subject in the context of reporting on a developer survey
Sourcegraph contracted Dimensional Research to do.
90:
83:
17:
136:
131:
242:
140:
59:
104:
100:
670:
Knowledge (XXG)'s
Reliable Sources page says "Wired magazine is considered generally reliable for science and technology."
237:
Way too many tags on this page for me to be comfortable marking it as reviewed - especially concerning is the possible UPE
1036:
916:
871:
607:
221:
1223:
1051:
959:
696:
563:
https://venturebeat.com/business/sourcegraph-now-lets-enterprises-automate-large-scale-code-changes-across-repositories/
445:
LWN.net is not listed in Knowledge (XXG)'s Reliable Sources page, but it is generally considered reliable in its niche.
188:
123:
1267:
40:
1234:
Final relist. I'm interested in seeing opinions after the recent "reworking" of the article to have a different focus.
167:
901:
Please show where too much work needed to salvage(i.e. "too many tags") is barred as a reason to start a discussion
886:
but not the company. There seems to be some attempt to refocus the article in that way, I would be okay with that.
828:
652:
939:
notes, I'm attempting to refocus the topic; and I am happy to continue the discussion on the article's talk page.
366:
518:
https://venturebeat.com/business/sourcegraph-raises-50-million-to-tackle-big-code-problems-with-universal-search/
238:
473:
https://venturebeat.com/business/sourcegraph-raises-23-million-to-bring-universal-code-search-to-all-developers/
1032:
387:
https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2020/10/sourcegraph-devs-are-managing-100x-more-code-now-than-they-did-in-2010/
182:
371:
1136:
944:
773:
736:
332:
1263:
178:
36:
1248:
1212:
1185:
1165:
1143:
1106:
1092:
1071:
1040:
1022:
984:
948:
940:
921:
895:
876:
840:
792:
777:
769:
754:
740:
732:
720:
349:
336:
328:
321:
299:
274:
246:
65:
1102:
1088:
1018:
1009:
270:
228:
214:
1125:
809:
1131:
912:
867:
79:
29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
1262:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
35:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
891:
851:
788:
750:
716:
317:
127:
1173:
1121:
377:
309:
1181:
859:
to draft in September last year, and had not seen mainspace before January 6 this year. --
836:
194:
1098:
1084:
1014:
1005:
760:
608:
https://venturebeat.com/business/sourcegraph-plans-to-index-the-entire-open-source-web/
308:. None of the sources offered are appropriate for establishing that the company meets
294:
266:
1207:
1160:
53:
906:
861:
157:
936:
887:
784:
746:
712:
653:
https://www.wired.com/2016/03/former-open-sourcers-ask-companies-pay-fair-share/
313:
119:
71:
1177:
832:
678:
The article discusses the subject in the context of the Fair Source License.
1239:
1062:
975:
764:
731:, it seems as though the standards for sources are not equally applied.
728:
824:
427:
1258:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
1226:
to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
1054:
to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
962:
to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
850:
I have stated that I will not !vote in this discussion (see
831:
about their Fair Source license does not show notability. -
1120:
The source assessment table above shows a clear pass of
153:
149:
145:
970:
Relisting. Consider the possibility of draftification.
633:
The article discusses the subject directly in detail.
588:
The article discusses the subject directly in detail.
543:
The article discusses the subject directly in detail.
498:
The article discusses the subject directly in detail.
453:
The article discusses the subject directly in detail.
213:
727:
However, if I compare this article to, for example,
1237:Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
1060:Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
973:Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
227:
43:). No further edits should be made to this page.
1270:). No further edits should be made to this page.
281:Note: This discussion has been included in the
253:Note: This discussion has been included in the
8:
111:Help, my article got nominated for deletion!
342:
280:
252:
900:
348:Source assessment table: prepared by
18:Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion
7:
827:, and a couple of brief mentions in
24:
665:
658:
628:
620:
613:
583:
575:
568:
538:
530:
523:
493:
485:
478:
448:
440:
433:
428:https://lwn.net/Articles/828748/
399:
392:
285:lists for the following topics:
257:lists for the following topics:
96:Introduction to deletion process
1012:) 09:22, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
825:single review of their product
1:
66:15:11, 13 February 2023 (UTC)
1249:06:55, 6 February 2023 (UTC)
1213:18:05, 5 February 2023 (UTC)
1186:02:18, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
1166:18:05, 5 February 2023 (UTC)
1144:15:06, 30 January 2023 (UTC)
1107:15:34, 30 January 2023 (UTC)
1093:15:33, 30 January 2023 (UTC)
1072:07:10, 30 January 2023 (UTC)
1041:04:22, 25 January 2023 (UTC)
1023:10:36, 6 February 2023 (UTC)
985:03:20, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
949:10:15, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
922:15:02, 19 January 2023 (UTC)
896:14:31, 19 January 2023 (UTC)
877:13:41, 19 January 2023 (UTC)
841:11:34, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
793:10:25, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
778:10:18, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
755:20:48, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
741:17:27, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
721:16:25, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
337:16:02, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
322:09:34, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
300:12:32, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
275:09:38, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
247:03:20, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
666:
659:
629:
621:
614:
584:
576:
569:
539:
531:
524:
494:
486:
479:
449:
441:
434:
400:
393:
86:(AfD)? Read these primers!
1287:
1206:!vote is now appropriate.
690:
345:
1260:Please do not modify it.
1004:that needs improvement.
32:Please do not modify it.
1002:article on the software
168:edits since nomination
372:Significant coverage?
84:Articles for deletion
376:Count source toward
239:Taking Out The Trash
1124:, which supersedes
1033:My very best wishes
697:source assess table
1232:Relisting comment:
968:Relisting comment:
1251:
1154:No. GNG does not
1074:
987:
920:
875:
707:
706:
703:
655:
610:
565:
520:
475:
430:
389:
350:User:Worktheclock
302:
277:
101:Guide to deletion
91:How to contribute
64:
1278:
1247:
1236:
1229:
1227:
1142:
1139:
1134:
1070:
1059:
1057:
1055:
983:
972:
965:
963:
910:
909:
865:
864:
852:Talk:Sourcegraph
808:- Article fails
701:
695:
691:
684:
677:
669:
668:
662:
661:
651:
642:
641:
632:
631:
624:
623:
617:
616:
606:
597:
596:
587:
586:
579:
578:
572:
571:
561:
552:
551:
542:
541:
534:
533:
527:
526:
516:
507:
506:
497:
496:
489:
488:
482:
481:
471:
462:
461:
452:
451:
444:
443:
437:
436:
426:
418:
411:
403:
402:
396:
395:
385:
343:
297:
283:deletion sorting
255:deletion sorting
232:
231:
217:
161:
143:
81:
56:
34:
1286:
1285:
1281:
1280:
1279:
1277:
1276:
1275:
1274:
1268:deletion review
1238:
1222:
1220:
1137:
1132:
1129:
1061:
1050:
1048:
1025:
1003:
999:
974:
958:
956:
905:
860:
699:
693:
682:
673:
637:
636:
592:
591:
547:
546:
502:
501:
457:
456:
416:
407:
353:
295:
174:
134:
118:
115:
78:
75:
62:
48:The result was
41:deletion review
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
1284:
1282:
1273:
1272:
1254:
1253:
1235:
1230:
1216:
1215:
1191:
1190:
1189:
1188:
1170:
1169:
1168:
1147:
1146:
1114:
1113:
1112:
1111:
1110:
1109:
1058:
1044:
1043:
1026:
1013:
1001:
997:
990:
989:
971:
966:
952:
951:
929:
928:
927:
926:
925:
924:
880:
879:
844:
843:
802:
801:
800:
799:
798:
797:
796:
795:
761:Loom (company)
724:
723:
705:
704:
688:
687:
679:
671:
663:
656:
648:
647:
646:
634:
626:
618:
611:
603:
602:
601:
589:
581:
573:
566:
558:
557:
556:
544:
536:
528:
521:
513:
512:
511:
499:
491:
483:
476:
468:
467:
466:
454:
446:
438:
431:
423:
422:
421:
413:
405:
397:
390:
382:
381:
374:
369:
364:
359:
355:
354:
346:
341:
340:
339:
324:
303:
278:
235:
234:
171:
114:
113:
108:
98:
93:
76:
74:
69:
58:
46:
45:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
1283:
1271:
1269:
1265:
1261:
1256:
1255:
1252:
1250:
1246:
1244:
1243:
1233:
1228:
1225:
1218:
1217:
1214:
1211:
1210:
1205:
1200:
1196:
1193:
1192:
1187:
1183:
1179:
1175:
1171:
1167:
1164:
1163:
1157:
1153:
1152:
1151:
1150:
1149:
1148:
1145:
1141:
1140:
1135:
1127:
1123:
1119:
1116:
1115:
1108:
1104:
1100:
1096:
1095:
1094:
1090:
1086:
1083:
1080:
1077:
1076:
1075:
1073:
1069:
1067:
1066:
1056:
1053:
1046:
1045:
1042:
1038:
1034:
1030:
1027:
1024:
1020:
1016:
1011:
1007:
995:
992:
991:
988:
986:
982:
980:
979:
969:
964:
961:
954:
953:
950:
946:
942:
938:
934:
931:
930:
923:
918:
914:
908:
902:
899:
898:
897:
893:
889:
884:
883:
882:
881:
878:
873:
869:
863:
857:
853:
849:
846:
845:
842:
838:
834:
830:
826:
822:
818:
817:announcements
815:
811:
807:
804:
803:
794:
790:
786:
781:
780:
779:
775:
771:
766:
762:
758:
757:
756:
752:
748:
744:
743:
742:
738:
734:
730:
726:
725:
722:
718:
714:
709:
708:
698:
689:
686:
680:
676:
672:
664:
657:
654:
650:
649:
645:
640:
635:
627:
619:
612:
609:
605:
604:
600:
595:
590:
582:
574:
567:
564:
560:
559:
555:
550:
545:
537:
529:
522:
519:
515:
514:
510:
505:
500:
492:
484:
477:
474:
470:
469:
465:
460:
455:
447:
439:
432:
429:
425:
424:
420:
414:
410:
406:
398:
391:
388:
384:
383:
379:
375:
373:
370:
368:
365:
363:
360:
357:
356:
352:
351:
344:
338:
334:
330:
325:
323:
319:
315:
311:
307:
304:
301:
298:
292:
288:
284:
279:
276:
272:
268:
264:
260:
256:
251:
250:
249:
248:
244:
240:
230:
226:
223:
220:
216:
212:
208:
205:
202:
199:
196:
193:
190:
187:
184:
180:
177:
176:Find sources:
172:
169:
165:
159:
155:
151:
147:
142:
138:
133:
129:
125:
121:
117:
116:
112:
109:
106:
102:
99:
97:
94:
92:
89:
88:
87:
85:
80:
73:
70:
68:
67:
63:
61:
55:
51:
44:
42:
38:
33:
27:
26:
19:
1259:
1257:
1241:
1240:
1231:
1221:
1219:
1208:
1203:
1198:
1194:
1161:
1155:
1130:
1117:
1079:Weak delete.
1078:
1064:
1063:
1049:
1047:
1028:
993:
977:
976:
967:
957:
955:
941:Worktheclock
932:
855:
847:
805:
770:Worktheclock
733:Worktheclock
681:
674:
643:
638:
598:
593:
553:
548:
508:
503:
463:
458:
415:
408:
362:Independent?
347:
329:Worktheclock
305:
236:
224:
218:
210:
203:
197:
191:
185:
175:
77:
57:
50:no consensus
49:
47:
31:
28:
201:free images
120:Sourcegraph
72:Sourcegraph
829:an article
821:churnalism
812:. Routine
287:Technology
263:California
1264:talk page
1156:supercede
1099:Oaktree b
1085:Oaktree b
1015:PaulT2022
1006:PaulT2022
367:Reliable?
296:Spiderone
267:Shellwood
259:Companies
37:talk page
1266:or in a
1224:Relisted
1209:HighKing
1199:reworked
1162:HighKing
1126:WP:NCORP
1052:Relisted
960:Relisted
917:contribs
872:contribs
810:WP:NCORP
765:Airtable
291:Software
164:View log
105:glossary
54:Eddie891
39:or in a
1197:I have
907:Elmidae
862:Elmidae
848:Comment
814:funding
729:Grafana
685:Partial
419:Partial
358:Source
207:WP refs
195:scholar
137:protect
132:history
82:New to
1174:WP:GNG
1138:Anchor
1122:WP:GNG
937:331dot
888:331dot
806:Delete
785:331dot
747:331dot
713:331dot
314:331dot
310:WP:ORG
306:Delete
179:Google
141:delete
1178:Aoidh
1133:Frank
1000:stub
998:semi-
833:Aoidh
763:, or
222:JSTOR
183:books
158:views
150:watch
146:links
16:<
1204:Keep
1195:Keep
1182:talk
1176:. -
1118:Keep
1103:talk
1089:talk
1037:talk
1029:Keep
1019:talk
1010:talk
994:Keep
945:talk
933:Keep
913:talk
892:talk
868:talk
837:talk
823:, a
789:talk
774:talk
751:talk
737:talk
717:talk
333:talk
318:talk
289:and
271:talk
261:and
243:talk
215:FENS
189:news
154:logs
128:talk
124:edit
60:Work
856:not
644:Yes
599:Yes
554:Yes
509:Yes
464:Yes
378:GNG
229:TWL
162:– (
1245:iz
1184:)
1128:.
1105:)
1091:)
1068:iz
1039:)
1021:)
981:iz
947:)
915:·
894:)
870:·
839:)
819:,
791:)
776:)
753:)
739:)
719:)
700:}}
694:{{
380:?
335:)
320:)
312:.
293:.
273:)
265:.
245:)
209:)
166:|
156:|
152:|
148:|
144:|
139:|
135:|
130:|
126:|
52:.
1242:L
1180:(
1101:(
1087:(
1065:L
1035:(
1017:(
1008:(
978:L
943:(
919:)
911:(
890:(
874:)
866:(
835:(
787:(
772:(
749:(
735:(
715:(
702:.
683:~
675:~
639:✔
594:✔
549:✔
504:✔
459:✔
417:~
409:~
331:(
316:(
269:(
241:(
233:)
225:·
219:·
211:·
204:·
198:·
192:·
186:·
181:(
173:(
170:)
160:)
122:(
107:)
103:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.