Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cad Crowd

< Wikipedia:Articles for deletion
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 delete‎. Struck or not, Liz's relist comment sums up the situation: A lot of very new accounts making relatively poor arguments in favor of keeping, while established editors and those making higher quality arguments were much more on the delete side. As AfD is not a nose count, this tilts it into "Delete". Seraphimblade Talk to me 06:43, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Cad Crowd

edit

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

Cad Crowd (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:SPA creation, no indication of notability per WP:NCORP. Ko Eilders (talk) 15:44, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: There appear to be outside sources discussing the company here, and I found some puff interviews, but I'm not finding anything definitive saying this one reaches the notability guidelines: [[1]][[2]] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Let'srun (talk • contribs) 18:41, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete does not meet WP:GNG."Justwatchmee (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 17:14, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]


Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as I'm skeptical of new accounts whose 2nd edit is to nominate an article for deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 15:45, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - Per the notability worksheet.
Source assessment table prepared by User:Akikormin125
Source Independent? Reliable? Significant coverage? Count source toward GNG?
https://calgaryherald.com/news/local-news/startup-of-the-week-cad-crowd Yes Independent Yes The source is a noted book by a newspaper Yes The source discusses the subject directly and in detail ✔ Yes
https://www.newspapers.com/article/edmonton-journal/129375675/ Yes Edmonton Journal is independent Yes Yes it is reliable Yes Yes the article is about them ✔ Yes
https://books.google.com/books?id=ifqaDwAAQBAJ&q="CadCrowd" Yes Independent Yes The source is a major publisher & well respected Author Yes The book has fairly substantial coverage, definitely more than a mention. ✔ Yes
https://books.google.com/books?id=Zr1dEAAAQBAJ&q="Cad Crowd" -wikipedia Yes Independent Yes The information discussed seems reliable ~ Repeatedly mentioned on P.’s 268, 270, 272 ~ Partial
https://web.archive.org/web/20200415004410/https://www.nytimes.com/reuters/2020/04/01/technology/01reuters-health-coronavirus-invention-insight.html Yes Independent Yes The source is a news organization. Yes Fairly decent for ny times. ✔ Yes
https://www.re-thinkingthefuture.com/product-design/a2766-cad-crowd-10-iconic-products/ Yes Independent Yes The source is a well known online architectural publication. Could be a yellow here if you were being extremely harsh. ~ The entire article is about the company and the history of what has been showcased there. ~ Partial
https://www.engineering.com/story/the-best-crowdsourced-designs-to-fight-covid-19 Yes Independent Yes The source is one of the most notable engineering websites Yes The source discusses the subject directly and in detail ✔ Yes
https://www.newspapers.com/article/calgary-herald/129375502/ Yes Independent Yes The source is a well known ~ This article is more of a mention than in-depth. ~ 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}}.

Akikormin125 (talk) 22:43, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Response Here's a quick analysis using GNG/WP:NCORP criteria
  • Calgary Herald relies entirely on an interview with the founder, fails WP:ORGIND (not "Independent", regurgitated company bumpf)
  • Edmonton Journal also relies entirely on information provided by the company and has no "Independent Content" nor any in-depth information on the company, fails ORGIND and CORPDEPTH
  • Book on "Target Funding" is a mention with a 2 sentence profile, not in-depth, fails WP:CORPDEPTH
  • Book on Product Lifecycle Management mentions that they used data from the topic company to train their machine learning algorithm and for testing and provides very rough statistics on the crowdsourcing projects listed. But has no in-depth information about the company and fails CORPDEPTH
  • Reuters article has a quote from a founder and a description of a contest. No "Independent Content" and no in-depth information, fails ORGIND and CORPDEPTH.
  • Rethinking the Future is not a reliable source and has a big disclaimer on their Content Policy page. The article has no attributed journalist and provides no in-depth information on the company nor "Independent Content", fails ORGIND and CORPDEPTH.
  • Engineering.com article comments on entries into a content run by the topic company, fails to provide any in-depth information about the company, fails CORPDEPTH
  • Calgary Herald article has three sentences, two of which are quotes from the company, fails CORPDEPTH and ORGIND
None of those sources meet GNG/WP:NCORP criteria for establishing notability. HighKing 12:39, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • ResponseHere's a quick analysis of your analysis using my version of GNG/WP:NCORP criteria, the way it is supposed to be applied.
Calgary Herald relies entirely on an interview with the founder, fails WP:ORGIND (not "Independent", regurgitated company bumpf) Anyone doing a weekly column on startups from their country will have a editorial review board of at least a journalist and editor that reviews submissions, researches and then contacts the principals for a brief interview which is what happened here. Any information published independently of the interview is considered valid and usable. WP:NCORP is meant to weed out simple mentions, phone book listings, small funding announcements w/ no additional information and trivial coverage. Not articles in major news publications highlighting the country’s most promising companies.
Edmonton Journal also relies entirely on information provided by the company and has no "Independent Content" nor any in-depth information on the company, fails ORGIND and CORPDEPTH. Same situation here, the paper is covering a labor shortage and how Cad Crowd is helping. There is significant coverage into the company, its product, and its history. There are a couple quotes but that is standard editorial process in newspapers to grab quotes while fact checking. This is the definition of good coverage and a valid article.
Book on "Target Funding" is a mention with a 2 sentence profile, not in-depth, fails WP:CORPDEPTH This entry into this book literally has a section where it says this is a short profile of the company. It is mentioned 3 times over 2 pages THAT WE CAN SEE.. You can see the entry has numerical paragraphs, we only see 1), so there is definitely more there. WP:CORP defines passages in books as counting towards notability. It is even listed at the end of the book.
Book on Product Lifecycle Management mentions that they used data from the topic company to train their machine learning algorithm and for testing and provides very rough statistics on the crowdsourcing projects listed. But has no in-depth information about the company and fails CORPDEPTH The same goes here. This company is tacking internal data from the company and training the machine. There is absolutely nothing more in-depth about the company than information from its website and customers fed into an AI program to learn from. This chapter is 6 pages long and is the definition of corp depth. They literally use Cad Crowd to train InnoCrowd so every mention of InnoCrowd can be sourced back as info on Cad Crowd. Also, Cad Crowd is often referred to as “the crowdsourcing platform” several times as well. That is at least a 10 pages just on Cad Crowd. How could you claim you read this and argue it wasn’t in-depth? It is an entire AI platform developed on the bones of Cad Crowd and how it was developed.
Reuters article has a quote from a founder and a description of a contest. No "Independent Content" and no in-depth information, fails ORGIND and CORPDEPTH. This comment is just creating more work, my table specifically says it is not an in-depth article but again, mentions do count toward notability. This article is about several people trying to tackle problems during a pandemic in different ways.
Rethinking the Future is not a reliable source and has a big disclaimer on their Content Policy page. The article has no attributed journalist and provides no in-depth information on the company nor "Independent Content", fails ORGIND and CORPDEPTH. You are just creating more work again here.. If you look at the table, I only claim partial because I already took into consideration it was an online publication. I went to the disclaimer page and there is nothing there that isnt standard for any small publication. There is nothing there about paid content or anything about contributors. This not the same situation as forbes like you claim.
Engineering.com article comments on entries into a content run by the topic company, fails to provide any in-depth information about the company, fails CORPDEPTH This article is items designed on its platform to help save lives during a global pandemic. Since this is an engineering and design crowdsourcing employment platform, this again, is the very definition of corporate depth.
Calgary Herald article has three sentences, two of which are quotes from the company, fails CORPDEPTH and ORGIND Trying to attack this reference when the table says it is more of a mention in a larger articles is just projecting. Read the table, I agree it is more of a mention but still partially counts.
I count at least 4 sources that meet the parameters and 3 partials towards WP:GNG/NCORP. I should also mention that sources do not need to be in the article. This is a worldwide engineering crowdsourcing website taking jobs from all over the world. I see several sources in other languages including both newspapers and books. I don’t see the point of doing more work since I only need 2 and I have obviously provided 4. I hope some other editors will join me voting so we can debunk this misuse of WP:NCORP and look at the article’s intentions and what it really lists as trivial mentions. Thanks, you have my vote, table and reply.. I weep for those editors with less real world publishing experience who have to deal with this.
From my perspective, every argument you made on every source I provided was wildly incorrect or already addressed in the table I provided. Akikormin125 (talk) 21:08, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: As there is a disagreement over the quality of sources.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 17:39, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

•Keep: I saw other pages related to it and also its resources. The resources used are kind of trustable and I see no enough reason to delete it. Rather there are things to be improved through editing. Eyoab (talk) 17:05, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Struck vote per https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/SharonAnama. - Indefensible (talk) 22:28, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Right now we have a divide between experienced editors weighing in for Deletion and newer accounts advocating Keeping the article. This should be the end of it but I'm relisting this discussion to see if there is any further support for Draftifying this article and asking for it to go through the AFC process.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 20:51, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Liz, I know it isn't my place to tell someone who spends as many hours as you do about wikipedia but isn't 3 relistings excessive? I thought two was the max? I know I am not of any standing but as it was brought up, the nominator had no history at all.. not that mine is extensive but to resist a 3rd time for something that was barely in the conversation? Anyway, I added some references and cleaned up the article to hopefully comply with wikipedia's standards. There are more out there but given this company has 45,000 engineers and designers on its platform, I think it would more collaborative to allow other people to contribute before sourcing the entire company history to prove its notability. I think this should have been closed as a win or at least a tie.. They could always revisit AFD in 90 days. Thx for your help. Akikormin125 (talk) 22:44, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Akikormin125,
Sometimes discussions are relisted three times although it's advised to not relist more than twice. Don't feel like it isn't your place to note problems if they exist, that's the only way to get a situation to change. To be honest, I've been taking on more AFDclosures and relistings than I think I should and that is partially due to a low number of admins patrolling AFDs compared to, say, a year ago or even earlier this summer. At this point, I feel it's best to leave it to another admin to close this discussion who might not see the problems I saw. I've struck my comments. Liz Read! Talk! 23:20, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I think the article has enough references to meet the spirit of WP:GNG per the ref table. User:Annki777
  • Delete The appear to be some COI accounts weighing here, but be that as it may, this article as written and cited does not merit a keep. Perhaps a case can be made that additional editing and WP:RS sourcing could improve it, but from its current state and good points made by other editors in the discussion, it seems like a clear delete. Go4thProsper (talk) 10:39, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The subject needs to be improved. the article was listed for deletion after 3 days. From what I see, it has continued to improve and add references." as well. Also I can see some reliable sources such as the Calgary Herald and IEEE Spectrum. Nomadwikiholic (talk) 16:20, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    KEEP - There seems to be more than enough references to keep a posting about a freelance job platform for engineers. I think that the page certainly is within the realm of the spirit of Wikipedia. Apple pellet (talk) 06:03, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I want to again reiterate the point this is one of the strangest AfDs I've ever seen - almost every single keep !voter is relatively new to the project, and (at least?) one has already been a confirmed sock. The article as it stands still fails WP:NCORP. The Calgary Herald article was an interview with the founders and does not meet SIRS. The IEEE article barely mentions the company - it's about a design competition they sponsored. The New York Times article just interviews the founder briefly. There still aren't any articles which clear the large NCORP hurdle, and nobody arguing to keep this around has really interacted with that argument. SportingFlyer T·C 08:43, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Just send it back to draft as compromise in my opinion, there is confirmed sockpuppet use and probably WP:COI as you noted but subject does have promise and could meet WP:SIRS in the future so let them have the draft and continue working on the article. - Indefensible (talk) 17:46, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    You have a lot more patience with COI editing than I do :) SportingFlyer T·C 18:27, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    COI participation does not have to be universally bad, just like how using WP:PRIMARY sources is not 100% wrong either. This subject actually has decent ref coverage in my opinion, the main problem is they seem to be mainly based on interviews. So with further coverage it looks promising. - Indefensible (talk) 18:40, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't see how you can say that the discussion on NCORP hasn't been discussed? There has been:
    • A table
    • An analysis
    • A retort
    • Voting
    • 9 additional references have been added since nomination that supposedly were available.
    • 99Designs & other competitors are similarly in line with this page. Those articles are in much more need of improvement.
    • Since the additional references have been added the voting has been positive.
    Additionally I am not sure you understand the Cad Crowd model. The company offer design contests for projects so a winner can be hired. Design contests the company puts on to respond to a global pandemic when it is a freelancing crowd platform for engineers and designers is their corporate depth. NCORP is designed to prevent permastubs which this article is already way beyond. At some point the NY Times and all the other references have to be enough. Akikormin125 (talk) 20:19, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Not permastubs: WP:NCORP says These criteria, generally, follow the general notability guideline with a stronger emphasis on quality of the sources to prevent gaming of the rules by marketing and public relations professionals. If you read the NCORP guidelines, the references aren't enough, as I've discussed, and those !voting have not addressed those concerns. And the NY Times article - just because the founder of a company gets a sentence in a paper does not mean a company is notable... there may be better sources out there that would lend this to being kept, but I don't see them here. Also just because other similar companies have a page does not mean this one is eligible due to WP:OSE. SportingFlyer T·C 21:01, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    How did you find this information originally Akikormin125? Do you have any COI regarding the subject? Even if you do not, there is at least 1 confirmed sockpuppet and the high level of activity from new accounts looks suspicious frankly. - Indefensible (talk) 21:35, 31 August 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Cad_Crowd&oldid=1173338073"