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. Randykitty (talk) 12:22, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Codeforces[edit]

Codeforces (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A previous PROD was reversed but notability still has not been established. The subject is not notable, failing WP:NORG and WP:NWEB as there is no significant coverage of it in reliable sources. wumbolo ^^^ 12:45, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 13:34, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 13:34, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep – Ranked #1 by NDTV as shown here [1]. Coverage in the Daily Star – Irish Tech News – Forbes – Bloomberg and Techworm just to name a few, all third party – independent and reliable sources, as shown here [2]. In addition, also cited in scholarly papers, as shown here at Google Scholar [3]. I believe this meets our current standards for inclusion here at Wikipedia. ShoesssS ^Talk 14:09, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  @Shoessss: Actually it wasn't ranked #1 by NDTV, but by a person they interviewed. All of the things you've mentioned are only minor mentions of the subject in the sources; what we need is significant coverage to demonstrate notability. You linked to a Google Scholar search for papers, but I don't see any of them discussing Codeforces directly and significantly; please cite specific papers. wumbolo ^^^ 14:17, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Tyw7  (🗣️ Talk to me • ✍️ Contributions) 14:41, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Tyw7  (🗣️ Talk to me • ✍️ Contributions) 14:42, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep – Friends, Codeforces seem to be ranked among first 10000 on Alexa. If the educational resource with such a popularity is "not notable" then probably something is wrong with notability criteria. Surely this suggestion is not strict or official, (Redacted), I don't want to interfere anymore, but if this page is deleted, it would be hard to restrain from feeling that Wikipedia becomes another bit more broken :( — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rodion Gork (talk • contribs) 06:37, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - there are a lot of mentions of Codeforces in a BEFORE check, but many are primary in some way, most are non-independent/reliable and all the others (including those listed above) do not satisfy Sig Cov on Codeforces itself. Frequently they are 2-line throwaways while discussing the general concept, in others they discuss the founder without any details on the site itself. In the books & journal articles I looked at again most were a couple of lines, in a couple of cases they would grab examples from the site but without actually giving any Sig Cov on the website itself. Nosebagbear (talk) 16:49, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete There doesn't appear to be any references that meet the criteria for establishing notability as per WP:NCORP. None are intellectually independent. Topic fails GNG and WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 10:30, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nomination since subject fails WP:NCORP. Most sources are primary, while the Bloomberg Businessweek article name drops subject once ("young coders have started to flock to sites such as Codeforces and Topcoder," and that's it). -The Gnome (talk) 09:07, 28 July 2018 (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.