Talk:Sourcegraph

Draftification
- I'm sorry, but this is not the correct way to handle this.

I am slightly acquainted with and she has asked me for some advice while writing this article. For this reason, I have not moved the article to mainspace and I will not be reviewing it. However, I do object to this repeat draftification and have reversed it.

The article has been through two rounds of AfC review. I agree with the comment for the first one that pointed out the need for further independent sourcing. However the second, by Mattdaviesfsic, demanded Needs some expansion in the shorter "Services" sections, before it can be accepted.  This is not a demand within the ambit of AfC - expansion of that section cannot reasonably be expected to contribute anything to notability because the sourcing there is perforce primary. It's an editorial demand that has no bearing on suitability for mainspace. This struck me therefore as the article being bounced back more or less on the whim of the reviewer. It happens; I've done these things too (in NPP draftification) but I'm certainly trying to catch myself out on them these days.

Consequently I counseled Worktheclock to move the article to mainspace herself and let it be dealt with by mainspace processes. I object to it being moved back to draft for "jumping out of AfC" - never a very strong argument except in the case of obvious trainwrecks, which this clearly is not, and doubly inappropriate after the latest review rationale. Please deal with this via the appropriate channels now, i.e. AfD if you really think that notability is lacking.

As for conflict of interest, I will let Worktheclock make any relevant statements herself. My own COI extends to personal communication about how to create a well-formed article, which I will conservatively observe to the extent of not !voting in any AfD. I will, however, make sure that the article is not treated high-handedly. Cheers -- Elmidae (talk · contribs) 13:52, 7 January 2023 (UTC)


 * Hi Elmidae, pleasure as always, even if I disagree with your action, I respect your viewpoint. My viewpoint is that until the COI/UPE issue was dealt with appropriately, it should have remained in draftspace.  UPE editing should never be rewarded, in my opinion.  Especially due to the advertorial aspect of the current article.  Onel 5969  TT me 14:03, 7 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Hi, to answer your concerns, I'm still getting used to AfC so if I've put something in which (in a sense) isn't really up to me, then I apologise. I'm not prepared to die on this hill , so I'm fine with it in mainspace.
 * As it's a subject with which I have comparatively little familiarity, I would have considered my request (I object to it being called a demand, but anyway) to be something which could help get the article to be a bit more comprehensive before it got moved. I hope that clears up my review the other day. Mattdaviesfsic (talk) 14:04, 7 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Although, in any case, I do agree that the tags should have been sorted before moving it to mainspace. Mattdaviesfsic (talk) 14:06, 7 January 2023 (UTC)
 * (ec) Are you also working with regarding this article?  I would also respectfully disagree with this being returned to mainspace(though I too do not want to die on that hill).  I would interpret "expansion in the shorter "Services" section" to mean it needs to be expanded to establish notability, personally. I'm not really seeing what is notable about this company; it exists, and it offers services- but I see no discussion as to how it is significant or influential. 331dot (talk) 14:09, 7 January 2023 (UTC)


 * - guys, I'm not looking for any glorious hill deaths either :) and I certainly did not want to jump down anyone's throat, so let me pare it down to the basic motivation. I believe there is little more frustrating for a new editor than to bounce off what may feel like the arbitrary mercy of some Person of (Limited) Authority. I think we are seeing those instances daily in our respective areas (AfC, NPP, administration) but generally it's not nearly a big enough deal to do anything about it. In this case, I know the editor in question, so I would feel like a dick for just going "eh, sucks, better jump through that hoop", if I think that the hoop is not entirely justified.
 * So my suggestion would be that if one of you feels strongly enough that notability is lacking, send it to AfD, no hard feelings, and have it sorted out by what feels less like a single person calling the shot (although we do seem to have a sort of quorum here already). Frankly, from what I've gathered, what is currently present as sourcing in the article is what is available - it's not going to get any better. My impression is that the sourcing is weakly okay, but not my call to make.
 * I don't know who CConcannon is; I know that Worktheclock is not working for Sourcegraph, just uses it a lot. I agree it would be best if would chime in here and clarify this. She may also have an opinion about whether it makes sense to further work on this in draft, or have notability assessed now and for good. Cheers -- Elmidae (talk · contribs) 15:13, 7 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Hi again. I'm not commenting on the notability.  In reviewing, that is the third "tick" on my list, the first two being Copyvio and UPE/COI.  If an article has an issue with either of those, I don't bother to look at the notability initially. Obviously my issue here is the tag put on by a very experienced editor, 331dot, who, like yourself, I have the utmost respect for.  And my concern is that until it was addressed, it should not be moved.  It would be nice to have to have Worktheclock address the issue.  Regarding the notability issue, again, haven't delved into that area yet.  If no other reviewer gets to it in the next week, I'll take a look.  Onel 5969  TT me 15:19, 7 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Just to clarify, I placed the UPE tag not for Worktheclock, but for CConcannon(feel free to see their user talk where I had a conversation with them). 331dot (talk) 15:28, 7 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Hi @331dot - Given I have addressed your query, I wonder if it would be possible to remove at least the undisclosed payments tag for the article? I see it has been flagged for deletion because of the number of tags, and that one at least can be removed.Worktheclock (talk) 05:14, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
 * There are still UPE questions regarding the article(though not with you). 331dot (talk) 09:33, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
 * My understanding from CConcannon's user talk page is that they made two edits: “1. add the word "is" to make a complete sentence, 2. deleted a duplicate entry in a list of words” – Is reverting these two changes sufficient to alleviate the remaining UPE concerns? Vdavid2 (talk) 11:29, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Hi @331dot, @Mattdaviesfsic, @Onel5969 - I have responded to @331dot's query about whether I have a financial stake in promoting the topic (I do not) and I have no connection to the user CConcannon (who seems to have disappeared).
 * If there isn't sufficient notability for the topic, so be it. I'm not sure that further work will change that, and specifically expanding on the "Services" section would, as @Elmidae pointed out, depend too much on primary sources.Worktheclock (talk) 07:12, 8 January 2023 (UTC)