Talk:Cracking the Coding Interview

Notability

I have restored the Template:notability to the article after it was removed. The article still lacks reliable, independent sources, and it is not clear to me that this meets WP:NBOOK.

Some of the current sources appear to be corporate blogs, or... some random youtube channel? Notability is demonstrated by reliable, independent sources which discuss the topic in at least some depth, not blogs (corporate or otherwise), and not industry fluff. If these sources do not exist, this should be merged with the author's article, which unfortunately also has similar sourcing problems.

Specifically, Amazon bestseller lists are infamously poor for establishing anything, not even how well a book sells. All bestseller lists, including the NYT ones, are mired in publishing industry issues and politics, but Amazon's are basically worthless. While occasionally mentioned by reliable sources, this should be contextualized by those sources. Compiling statistics is a recipe for WP:SYNTH], as it is using primary source to imply a conclusion which cannot be supported by those sources.

Also, as a rule of thumb, all sources should specifically mention this book, or be uncontroversially related to it. Grayfell (talk) 11:19, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

I just removed this video. Although the video was pretty good, this channel doesn't appear to be a reliable source. Worse, despite the video's similar title, it is not about this book. Unless I missed it, doesn't mention the book at all. This suggests that this was added as a WP:REFBOMB. Please make sure that sources are reliable (WP:RS), independent (WP:INDY), and go into at least some depth beyond passing mentions (WP:SIGCOV). Grayfell (talk) 08:44, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

The dzone source, which I have also removed, is republished churnalism. It's an affiliate site which is not itself WP:RS. In this case, the article is repackaged from this article. This, in turn, is a commercial site with absolutely no signs of being a reliable source. The article is an advertisement for the author's book, and specifically says Look, it's way better than Cracking the Coding Interview, (sorry Gayle), just check out the reviews on Amazon. The author is a "life coach for software developers" and is also the founder of the website. It's not a usable source. Grayfell (talk) 09:02, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

The author is not a life coach, the author is a software engineer with a degree in Computer Science from an Ivy League University. This discussion should focus on the notability book, not the author Duncan.Hull (talk) 10:38, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

Added independent book reviews

Book reviews from indepedent sources have been added to establish notability, they have been cited inline with Wikipedia:Citing self-published blogs

• Camus, Ariel (2018). "The Ultimate Guide to Preparing for the Coding Interview". freecodecamp.org. freeCodeCamp.
• Baid, Ish (2019). "How To Ace the Coding Interview, by an Ex-Facebook Interviewer". medium.com.
• Lehr, Kenneth (2018). "Book review: Cracking the Coding Interview". medium.com. Medium.
• Anderson, R. (2017). "Cracking The Coding Interview: Review Problems Examples & Solutions". medium.com. Medium. {{cite web}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |1= (help)
• Ciubotariu, Nick (2014). "Ace the coding interview, every time". medium.com. Medium.

Duncan.Hull (talk) 10:38, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

• The Ultimate Guide to Preparing for the Coding Interview: a tutorial of 16 tasks, two being reading chapters of this book. Not a review of the book.
• How To Ace the Coding Interview: advice which includes an example from the book. Not a review of the book.
• Cracking the Coding Interview: a brief review of resources, including a one-paragraph review of the book.
• Cracking The Coding Interview: Review Problems Examples & Solutions: works through a problem from the book. Ends with a one-paragraph recommendation of the book.
• Ace the coding interview, every time: Advice on coding interviews, lists the book as a study guide. Not a review of the book.

Four of these are published on medium.com, which is listed at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources as Generally Unreliable, adding Medium is a blog hosting service. As a self-published source, it is considered generally unreliable and should be avoided unless the author is a subject-matter expert or the blog is used for uncontroversial self-descriptions. Medium should never be used as a secondary source for living persons. 80.41.128.168 (talk) 10:37, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for the detailed analysis of these "sources". I have already deleted them from the article for the same reason you cited. ---Avatar317^(talk) 05:06, 28 January 2020 (UTC)