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) 12:46, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kadama (App) (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)

Subject fails GNG. None of these sources are independent of the subject as they all interview the subject's founders and many of these read like whitewashed PR. Chris Troutman (talk) 22:30, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Software and Washington. Chris Troutman (talk) 22:31, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education and Internet. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:42, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Obvious spammy garbage with no meaningful RS and an obvious SPA who is trying to circumvent policy by moving this around. See also previous attempts. GRINCHIDICAE🎄 02:11, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I am the creator of this article. I do not have any conflict of interest and was not aware that the page was deleted in 2018. Even if that was the case, I am sure back then they did not have as many news coverage as they have today, because you will notice from most their article dates, they are all after 2019. This is not a reason to delete the page. The only valid reason to delete a page is if they do not have enough new coverage, which they do.

  I'm familiar with the company through personal use of their application, and upon noticing the absence of a Wikipedia page about them, I took the initiative to create one. I am a new editor and had to look up what an "SPA" is and as you can see from my history I have done lot's of other edits and will be doing more in the future, so I am not an SPA. I wish Wikipedia would treat their new editors better than this, rather than accusing them of spam. Bradelykooper (talk) 05:36, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep They have plenty of coverage to qualify. If you don't think its enough, do a Google search and you will find more. Coverage is present from credible publications such as Biz Journals, Bellevue College, GeekWire, Spoken Journal and more.Bradelykooper (talk) 05:43, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete article reads like advertisement, definitely spammy, fails GNG and NCORP, sources are not good, so I fully agree with nom and Praxidicae. Tehonk (talk) 06:04, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  As the author of the page, I've consciously avoided any language that might come across as promotional. If this remains a concern, I'm open to revising the content accordingly. Could you specify which parts you believe sound too much like an advertisement, so I can either adjust or eliminate them? Additionally, I've incorporated new sources discovered by the editor Royal88888 (below). Dismissing all sources as inadequate without explanation seems unfounded, particularly since many are from reputable outlets and some from university publications. Bradelykooper (talk) 11:49, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Subject has more than enough news coverage to meet notability. I also found a few new ones. See GeekWire, King5, Washington.edu, bizjournals.com, and a few others.Royal88888 (talk) 07:43, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep several of the sources look strong such as GeekWire, Washington University, and Bellevue College Articles. They have details of the company and its founders. I am not seeing anything that looks like PR and publications are reliable. COI issues should be addressed outside of AFD.Bikerose (talk) 02:02, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:05, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete the sources here are marginal and when compounded with serious funny business with respect to this article, I feel a delete is pretty clear. Allan Nonymous (talk) 21:49, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. In general, as a commercial application, guidance is to analyse under the criteria of WP:NCORP. There might be a little bit of wiggle room under GNG's independence requirements to accept the Bellevue and UW sources (though even there I would consider things marginal at best) but alumni interviews in school newsletters or a university article about their own startup accelerator are patently not acceptable under ORGCRIT. It is also unclear that such sources ever develop any "reputation for fact-checking and accuracy" owing to their typically limited circulation. BizJournals coverage is also heavily based off interview content (Wikipedia:Interviews) and cannot clearly establish independence on point 2 of ORGIND. The depth of coverage is also somewhat lacking. The next set of sources are the local sources like King 5 and Fox 13 (KCPQ). Again, these are heavily based off interview content — even before considering circulation, we are looking at about one, maybe two sentences. Depth of analysis would fall under ORGTRIV. GeekWire is the only source so far that is marginally acceptable under NCORP, and it is only one source. Alpha3031 (t • c) 10:40, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

COMMENT - I am a representative at Kadama. I would like to bring to your attention that our company also has coverage in a Pearson Textbook that is used in Colleges and Universities. It is called "Entrepreneurship: Successfully Launching New Ventures" the 7th Edition. I have uploaded just the relevant pages here https://issuu.com/bsimonllc/docs/entrepreneurship .
In addition, I would like to say that there are some more articles about us beyond what’s referenced in this article, including:


https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2023/03/28/tiktok-challenges-congress-misinformation/


https://www.forbes.com/30-under-30/2022/education?profile=kadama

https://www.foxbusiness.com/lifestyle/costco-gift-card-hack-reportedly-allows-non-members-shop-wholesale-club-know-this-secret

https://www.425business.com/in_print/page-24/page_4f244401-a414-5c46-8464-c90deaf63ec2.html

https://techcrunch.com/2021/06/12/this-week-in-apps-wwdc-21-highlights-instagram-creator-week-recap-android-12-beta-2-arrives

https://www.spokanejournal.com/articles/1858-northwest-entrepreneur-competition-names-winners

Thanks.

• Comment The textbook coverage mentioned above can contribute to establishing notability in accordance with Wikipedia's guidelines. It offers substantial information about the company's origins and operations. However, the other sources mentioned are merely brief references and won't contribute to establishing notability. While I previously voted in favor of keeping the page, the detailed coverage in this textbook further reinforces the case for the company's notability. Royal88888 (talk) 08:45, 6 April 2024 (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.