Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Codewars
I won't give a keep or delete argument here, but I will say this about the statement Newslinger made: "The Forbes.com article is not |independent and |not a reliable source, since it's an interview with a company co-counder written by a Forbes contributor."... Wait a minute, so '''just simply the facts''' that the article is an '''interview''' with a person from the company and it was written by a '''person whose not closely related to the subject''' (one of the three requirements for meeting WP:INDEPENDENT) and contributed the article to a source '''also not related to the subject and thus third party''' where, unlike a self-published source, '''you actually have to go through a very strict checking process''' to have your article qualify for publication in the source (gee, kinda like |AN ACTUAL RELIABLE SOURCE, and BTW, whoever did the page Wikipedia:Potentially unreliable sources, it should've been obvious to you that articles from Forbes.com '''can't count as self-published because,''' for one, the contributors are having another party publish their piece with '''professional verification''', something '''you even stated''' when you said "its authors are professionally vetted." It's not like Blogspot or Wordpress pages) makes the source '''unreliable and not independent?'''................. What kind of backwards logic is this
— User:EditorE, 20:53, 27 July 2018 (UTC)
Stance: comment
Cited policy: WP:IS||WP:PUS||WP:RS (Wikipedia:Reliable sources)