Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/App Academy


 * 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. No agreement on whether the sources satisfy WP:CORP. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:10, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

App Academy

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Fails WP:GNG. Störm  (talk)  08:52, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions.  Spiderone  08:58, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions.  Spiderone  08:59, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:50, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep. The article has plenty of citations that establish GNG. For example, a Wall Street Journal article, this article by Wired Magazine, , and this piece by ABC on Yahoo news all of which have been linked in the article and cover App Academy in depth. The article definitely needs some work and is promotional in tone but not to the level of being deletion worthy and App Academy definitely satisfies GNG. Chess (talk) (please use&#32; on reply) 23:10, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Pamzeis (talk) 08:52, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep: The Wired article and the Wall Street Journal article currently on the page demonstrate clear notability. — Toughpigs (talk) 03:57, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
 * How exactly? It bears asking seeing as how you appear to know that the appropriate guideline for organizations/corporations is WP:NCORP but yet you always appear to !vote to Keep articles with bland and vague (and false) reasoning while ignoring the NCORP guidelines and requirements. In my opinion, this is bad-faith editing and disruptive behaviour as other editors have then to spend time rebutting any arguments you put forward.  HighKing++ 21:56, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Wired and the Wall Street Journal are well-known reliable sources that fact-check their stories. Both articles are entirely about the subject, discussing it directly and in detail. I know that you and I disagree about the definition and importance of NCORP and ORGIND. You are not required to rebut my arguments, if you don't want to. — Toughpigs (talk) 22:34, 8 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Delete The appropriate guideline is WP:NCORP which specifically requires "Independent Content". Therefore, content provided by the company or where references rely on interviews/quotations from company officers fail the criteria for establishing notability. Of the references linked by above, the WSJ reference is from the blog section and fails as a reliable source. The Wired reference relies entirely on information provided by the company and quotes from the co-founder, fails WP:ORGIND. The Yahoo reference fails for the same reasons. I am unable to locate a single reference that meets the criteria for establishing notability, topic fails GNG/NCORP.  HighKing</b>++ 21:56, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
 * WSJ "blogs" aren't actual blogs. They're branded as blogs but have editorial review and are actually opinion pieces by established writers. See WP:NEWSBLOG. It's bizarre that you're describing that because the article relies on an interview it is somehow not independent. Does this mean that music reviews based entirely on the artist's performance are somehow not independent from the artist? Chess (talk) (please use&#32; on reply) 22:27, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I wasn't aware that the WSJ blogs have editorial review, can you point to somewhere that says that? Lets assume it does though for the purposes of trying to ascertain whether the article meets WP:NCORP, specifically WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:ORGIND. You say that it is "bizarre" that articles that rely on an interview is somehow not independent - please see WP:ORGIND and specifically the definition of "Independent Content". Where in that article is there any original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject? Once you remove the parts attributable to the interviewee, what remains is not substantial coverage. <b style="font-family: Courier; color: darkgreen;"> HighKing</b>++ 15:18, 10 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Delete I must have looked at this eight time and couldn't make up my mind, whether to try and improve it or try and delete it. I don't think it notable. There is a lot of these coding academies now and they are entirely generic in nature, as an organisational type. NCORP is the notability standard that is used here: Of the 11 references, 8 are companies own page failing WP:SIRS, one is a blog, the wired one fails WP:ORGIND and one is Yahoo news. It is a Yohoo blog, which doesn't inspire confidence. Lastly comment to  A large number of references != notability.    scope_creep Talk  13:24, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

<ul><li>Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.<ol> <li></li> <li></li> <li></li> <li></li> </ol> There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow App Academy to pass Notability, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". Cunard (talk) 01:14, 16 November 2020 (UTC)</li></ul> <div class="xfd_relist" style="border-top: 1px solid #AAA; border-bottom: 1px solid #AAA; padding: 0px 25px;"> Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz Humbug! 21:44, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I see this as bad-faith editing by presenting routine and WP:MILL coverage as suitable references, when in fact it is disingenuous reasoning that completely ignores WP:NCORP. Lets examine them:
 * App Academy: How a School Tuition Of $12,000 Leads To Annual Salary Of $83,000 in 9 Weeks Fails WP:CORPDEPTH standard notices, brief announcements, and routine coverage, such as: of a product or a product line launch, sale, change, or discontinuance
 * "It enables us to train a greater number of folks and it helps us succeed," App Academy CEO Kush Patel told CNNTech. "[It's] a win-win."  Fails WP:ORGIND
 * [] "The risk to us is students might want to go back to school or start their own business— or simply change their minds," Patel says. "We're actually very confident students can get jobs." Interview with founders. Fails WP:ORPGIND.
 * Reads like a press-release with a link in the opening sentence to the site. App Academy founder Kush Patel tells Lifehacker that while Codecademy is a good resource for all sorts of programming Fails WP:ORGIND. Another interview. The four references are entirely unsuitable for establishing notability. They all fail WP:NCORP.  scope_creep Talk  18:24, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment It is a recurring problem that Cunard posts links to references that are supposed to meet the criteria for establishing notability but that most of the time, they fail the criteria. I've pointed this out on multiple occasions as it is deliberately misleading, disruptive, and causes other editors to check each link in order to provide a rebuttal. Cunard has been around long enough and commented on enough AfD's by now to know about NCORP's criteria. Instead, based on Cunard's continal lack of any reference to NCORP in his !votes, it appears that Cunard refuses to accept NCORP and chooses instead to use a loose (and incorrect) interpretation of GNG to justify his !votes. As I said, this is disruptive and needs to stop. <b style="font-family: Courier; color: darkgreen;"> HighKing</b>++ 14:52, 21 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Comment - The above two comments are unnecessary personalization, bordering if not crossing personal attack territory. Cunard views things differently than you do.  That's allowed here.  We are here to build an encyclopedia, some people do that by improving the quality of the encyclopedia by removing non-encyclopedic content, and others do that by trying to rescue articles and demonstrating content as being encyclopedic.  Presenting sources for consideration is not a disruptive action.  You are allowed to disagree with those sources, and the analysis in disagreement thereof is not disruptive either.  Building content is hard work, why should deleting content be easy?   78.26  (spin me / revolutions) 17:02, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Evaluating sources is a part of this process. — Toughpigs (talk) 18:48, 24 November 2020 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. <b style="color:red">Please do not modify it.</b> 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.