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. Randykitty (talk) 11:24, 19 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

General Assembly (school) (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)

Delete Although the title says "school", this is in fact a company/organization that sells educational courses. None of the references meet the criteria for establishing notability (most fail WP:ORGIND) and are not intellectually independent as per WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 10:14, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:27, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:27, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:27, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - This is one of the big coding bootcamps, and has plenty of sources. The article cites several TechCrunch articles which, while not a traditional media outlet, is credible on technology issues like this one and has editorial oversight. There is also significant coverage from traditional outlets like WSJ, San Francisco Chronicle, South Florida Business Journal, Reuters, Forbes etc. While a lot of press headlines surround the business side of funding/acquisitions, there is also enough on the operations to form the basis of the article, and plenty of coverage significant enough to meet GNG. MarginalCost (talk) 19:24, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per MarginalCost's ref analysis, and that Forbes ref they supplied - that's definitely significant coverage. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:15, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Response I'm surprised at the Keep !votes above. I have analyzed the sources below and none meet the criteria for establishing notability as follows:
  • This Forbes reference fails since it is on their "sites" part and therefore fails WP:RS.
  • This coursereport.com reference is a website that lists every provider of bootcamp-like courses. The reviews are written by the public and fail RS. The description appears on other Bootcamp listing websites. The course information all comes from the company itself including the descriptions. This reference fails WP:ORGIND.
  • This Techcrunch reference is largely based on a company announcement and relies extensively on quotations from connected individuals. It is not intellectually independent and fails WP:ORGIND.
  • This inc.com reference is an interview with the founders with no original analysis or opinion and fails WP:ORGIND.
  • The WSJ reference is a blog fails WP:RS (no editorial overview, etc)
  • This TechCrunch reference is based on an company announcement and fails WP:ORGIND
  • This reference is from the company website and fails as a PRIMARY source
  • This San Francisco Chronicle reference is based on quotations provided by the CEO and has no intellectually independent opinion or analysis and fails WP:ORGIND
  • This bizjournals reference is based on rumour (shouldn't even be in the article IMO) and the contents fail as a WP:RS.
  • This TechCrunch reference is based on a company announcement where Adecco acquired the company and relies extensively on quotations from connected sources. Fails WP:ORGIND.
  • The skilledup.com reference is an exhaustive list of coding bootcamps which mentions General Assembly. Fails CORPDEPTH and ORGIND.
  • This PCMAG reference contains no information on the company itself and fails CORPDEPTH
  • This geekwire reference only mentions the company in passing, fails WP:CORPDEPTH.
  • This switchup reference contains reviews from the general public (fails WP:RS) and contains a generic description with no intellectually independent analysis or opinion of the company and fails WP:ORGIND.
  • This technical.ly reference is based on a company announcement, contains no intellectually independent analysis or opinion of the company and fails WP:ORGIND.
  • This edsurge reference is based on an interview/quotations from company officers, contains no intellectually independent analysis or opinion of the company and fails WP:ORGIND.

I'm happy to change my mind if references are found but the ones in the article don't cut it. HighKing⁺⁺ 17:50, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@HighKing: Thanks for doing that detailed work. I agree with you that many of the sources listed are sub-par, and don't establish notability. But I guess my main disagreement comes in the definition/application of intellectual independence – I think you're being too strict here. Yes, many articles include information provided by the company or its workers, but the publications themselves report on other aspects and have editorial control. They're not just re-packaged press releases, which seems to be the main concern of ORGIND. I think the standard for original analysis you're seeking is unrealistic, though I guess part of the point of AFD is to get consensus around questions like these.

I'll also throw in this Inside Higher Ed piece on how GA's partnerships with universities are working, which is a little more in-depth, though focused on only one part of the business, though I doubt you'll find it much different than the others in this dimension.

Minor quibble: as far I can tell, all Forbes articles, even the ones that appear in the print edition (e.g.), have "sites" at the top of the URL. The article you cite seems to have been written by a random contributor, but the article I linked to here in the AFD was by a Forbes staff writer - though not in the print edition. WP:ORGIND specifically cautions against articles in Forbes written by non-staff writers. I'm not familiar enough with Forbes' process to say exactly what degree of editorial review was conducted here, but it's probably irrelevant since even the non-interview part of the article probably wouldn't meet your standards for intellectual independence. MarginalCost (talk) 04:20, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

By way of background, there was much discussion before NCORP was updated so as to describe the correct interpretation of "independent" since at the majority of AfDs, some editors were interpreting only in terms of "functional independent" - that is, the publisher/author must be unrelated to the company, organization, or product. ORGIND provides this: Too often a related party produces a narrative that is then copied, regurgitated, and published in whole or in part by independent parties (as exemplified by churnalism). Independent content, in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject.. Simple enough - if the journalist/author provides an independent opinion/analysis, all is good. Personally I don't believe it is too "strict" as it assists greatly in being able to winnow references. It is an incredibly low bar when you think about it. Also, yes, the Inside Higher Ed piece is written by a company involved in a partnership so it also fails ORGIND. HighKing⁺⁺ 11:57, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

To be clear, I don't think the criteria is too strict, I think your standards for meeting it are, but I think we've covered that as well as we're going to. The IHE piece was written by an IHE News Editor - where do you see GA has a partnership with IHE? MarginalCost (talk) 16:38, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate the feedback. If you can point me towards something particular where you believe my interpretation is too strict, I will gladly review. You are correct that I misstated above. What I should have said is that the article relies extensively on material provided by a company involved in a partnership with GA. I would say that it fails as per ORGIND, since there is no evidence of any original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. HighKing⁺⁺ 19:11, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per HighKing's excellent analysis of the sources which I have checked and concur with. Fails WP:ORG. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 23:17, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. HighKing's analysis is excellent, but I would disagree with the notion that simply because coverage includes inputs from the company CEO or employees, it does not include independent analysis and investigation, especially in the case of sources which are considered reliable on the whole. For example:
  • The WSJ reference: While it is hosted on a WSJ blog site, it must not be entirely disregarded, per WP: NEWSBLOG, the journalist being a staff writer with WSJ.

In addition, the following coverage on the subject exists:

• • Forbes feature: It is an interview, but an interview with Forbes would contribute towards WP: CORPDEPTH.
  • NPR: Includes CEO inputs, but would be disingenuous to say that the article contains no intellectually independent analysis.
  • The Economist: Again, includes CEO inputs but most certainly includes intellectually independent analysis. For example: At first sight the London office of General Assembly looks like that of any other tech startup. But there is one big difference: whereas most firms use technology to sell their products online, General Assembly uses the physical world to teach technology. Its office is also a campus. The rooms are full of students learning and practising code, many of whom have quit their jobs to come here.

Considering that all three would qualify as WP: IRS, would strongly argue that the article must be retained. I understand that WP: ORGIND is extremely important, but journalists do rely on inputs from company founders, especially in the case of private firms, to understand operations and scope of activities.  Shobhit102 | talk  09:07, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• • Response That's all very well so long as you realize that you are essentially agreeing that the sources fail WP:ORGIND but your own opinion is that the article should be kept anyway. HighKing⁺⁺ 19:38, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • I don't think that's what Shobhit102 is saying at all. What he is saying (and I agree with - he is putting it better than I was) is that while yes, these articles incorporate information from the company, that is not all they do. In the NPR Article & set of Economist articles linked above for instance they visited the office/campus. The Economist article & Forbes (the one written by a Forbes staff writer, not the other one), evaluates the impact of GA on the tech education industry as a whole. The Reuters article contains criticism from others in the industry about potential conflicts of interest, and notes the company's prior failures in disclosure. The NPR article (the strongest of all these sources) interviews people in the industry but outside the company on the relative performance of graduates vs. traditional CS degree-holders, and mentions state regulatory actions. Yes, all these include quotes from the company, its employees, and its published records, but it's not fair to say that these are strict rehashes of company talking points, or that no independent research, analysis, or verification was undertaken. With all that's been written about "the largest of the boot camps, by far" (IHE), I really don't see the need to delete. MarginalCost (talk) 21:25, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thanks MarginalCost, these would precisely be my thoughts. To say that an article fails WP: ORGIND the moment it includes founder or employee inputs would not be appropriate characterization, or even fair to the publications or the writers. There's a certain nuance involved, and no, it does not mean that I agree that the articles fail WP: ORGIND.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Shobhit102 (talk • contribs) 05:14, 4 August 2018 (UTC) (UTC)[reply]

• Response The issue with articles that is not that include "inputs" from founder/employee but that they rely significantly on interviews/quotations from connected sources (including company officers, employees, partners, etc) to the point there is no intellectual independence as described in WP:ORGIND which states Independence of the content (or intellectual independence): the content must not be produced by interested parties. Too often a related party produces a narrative that is then copied, regurgitated, and published in whole or in part by independent parties (as exemplified by churnalism). Independent content, in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject.. The references I've examined fail to demonstrate any original/independent content/opinon/analysis/etc that is *clearly attributable* to a source unaffiliated to the subject. HighKing⁺⁺ 23:28, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. WP:N and WP:V compliant. This seems like a well known coding school with multiple reliable sources, such as TechCrunch and Forbes. As for Forbes, it's got very little information IMHO. Might that affect things perhaps? 🖍S (talk) 09:19, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Response There's a discussion at the Reliable Sources Noticeboard that points out TechCrunch (generally) fails ORGIND. Forbes is even worse. Therefore it isn't WP:N complaint unless you can provide two other sources that will meet the criteria for establishing notabilty. HighKing⁺⁺ 19:38, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thanks a lot HighKing, it was pretty useful to read the discussion. I did find additional coverage on the topic:

LA Times: Does not include any founder or employee inputs, is an analysis of people teaching themselves to code.

The New York Times Again, about learning to code with the coverage including a consumer's perspective of going through a General Assembly program.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Shobhit102 (talk • contribs) 05:29, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Response The NYT article relies extensively on quotations/interview from a co-founder. "Extensively" mean there is no information or opinion that isn't the co-founders. It fails WP:ORGIND because if doesn't contain original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. The LAT article mentions the firm three times, two of which is the name included in a list of companies described as "education startups" and the final mention provides an short description of the company's recent history in getting acquired which is not "significant" coverage and fails WP:SIGV. HighKing⁺⁺ 23:28, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note! CrayonS is blocked with checkuser evidence. As such, I have struck out the vote. --Yamla (talk) 12:58, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I have no doubt that this is a good faith nomination and I also note that editors I respect favor deletion. However, I believe that the nominator is a bit too dogmatic in evaluating the relative independence of the various sources. Standard ethical journalistic practice calls for journalists to ask the subjects of their articles for comments and input. So, inclusion of comments by involved parties are not sufficient to judge a source as not independent. It is usually quite obvious when a news story is straight regurgitation of a press release or spin by corporate insiders. I am not seeing that with quite a few of these sources. Evaluating how much of an article by publications like the New York Times and the Los Angeles Times (for example) is original reporting and how much of it is "extensively" repetition of the company line is a skill for experienced editors. Keep in mind that these publications have good reputations for original reporting and are not known as PR regurgitators. In my opinion, there is more than enough original reporting and professional editorial judgment exhibited in the sources, and therefore I conclude that the threshold of notabilty has been met. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:34, 11 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: does not meet WP:NCORP / WP:ORGIND. A promotional page for a for-profit institution. Sources lack WP:CORPDEPTH and are routine notices, WP:SPIP and / or passing mentions. Appears to be part of a promo walled garden around Adam Pritzker; the name sounded familiar because I had nominated one of articles related to him for deletion. The page under discussion was created by an account with few edits outside this topic, so COI-based editing is likely: Special:Contributions/Mentes. Delete, on the balance of things. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:42, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep While some of the references are promotional, it's not reasonable to claim that NPR, the New York Times, and the LA Times articles all fail WP:ORGIND because their stories include quotes from people affiliated with the company; they have sufficient coverage apart from those quotes. power~enwiki (π, ν) 04:39, 19 August 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.