Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cad Crowd

Cad Crowd

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

(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]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2023 August 3. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 16:11, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:09, 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]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and California. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:32, 5 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]

Delete This is a company therefore GNG/WP:NCORP requires at least two deep or significant sources with each source containing "Independent Content" showing in-depth information *on the company*. "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. Most of the sources are PRIMARY and I'm unable to identify any references that meet the criteria for establishing notability. HighKing⁺⁺ 16:56, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Per the notability worksheet.

Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
Source assessment table: prepared by User:Akikormin125
https://calgaryherald.com/news/local-news/startup-of-the-week-cad-crowd	Independent	The source is a noted book by a newspaper	The source discusses the subject directly and in detail	✔ Yes
https://www.newspapers.com/article/edmonton-journal/129375675/	Edmonton Journal is independent	Yes it is reliable	Yes the article is about them	✔ Yes
https://books.google.com/books?id=ifqaDwAAQBAJ&q=%22CadCrowd%22	Independent	The source is a major publisher & well respected Author	The book has fairly substantial coverage, definitely more than a mention.	✔ Yes
https://books.google.com/books?id=Zr1dEAAAQBAJ&q=%22Cad+Crowd%22+-wikipedia	Independent	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	Independent	The source is a news organization.	Fairly decent for ny times.	✔ Yes
https://www.re-thinkingthefuture.com/product-design/a2766-cad-crowd-10-iconic-products/	Independent	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	Independent	The source is one of the most notable engineering websites	The source discusses the subject directly and in detail	✔ Yes
https://www.newspapers.com/article/calgary-herald/129375502/	Independent	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.

E~~ngineering.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''' - Refs provided are from major news sources, throw in some books passages as well. Softowiki (talk) 14:32, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Its evident that all sources are independent and reliable. Also, most of them have significant coverage and only a few contain partial significant coverage. All these prove the authenticity of the article that's why I'm for "Keep". Softowiki (talk) 14:55, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I have reviewed the above and am in complete agreement with HighKing's assessment of the sources. This fails WP:NCORP. SportingFlyer T·C 20:41, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Also note the pro-keeping table of sources was provided by the article's author, who has made limited edits outside this page and deletion discussion. SportingFlyer T·C 20:43, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify - there are references although many are based on interviews, so let the article creator work on improving the article. - Indefensible (talk) 23:56, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]