Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kadama (App)

Kadama (App)

[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)

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]