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 no consensus. Randykitty ( talk) 16:46, 7 January 2020 (UTC) reply

DeepMap (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)

(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NCORP. The parts of the article which are specific to the company fail the WP:RS, WP:IS & WP:SIGCOV requirements, detailing at best the various funding rounds. The section about HD mapping needed for self-drive cars is an interesting idea for an article, but this profile of a start-up isn't it. Cabayi ( talk) 14:20, 14 December 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Cabayi ( talk) 14:20, 14 December 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Cabayi ( talk) 14:20, 14 December 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Cabayi ( talk) 14:20, 14 December 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Cabayi ( talk) 14:20, 14 December 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Cabayi ( talk) 14:20, 14 December 2019 (UTC) reply

• Delete - promotional article about an unremarkable startup. I wouldn't be surprised if this was undisclosed paid-for spam, so I've blocked the creator for WP:UPE. MER-C 16:46, 14 December 2019 (UTC) reply
• Keep - just a quick quick keep vote until I get a chance to get back to my computer and add some more info from other sources. For the closer - this article has been completely rewritten since it was created by the blocked editor. TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)} 21:54, 15 December 2019 (UTC) reply

Note - the AFD nomination came after the rewrite. Cabayi ( talk) 22:16, 15 December 2019 (UTC) reply

Nobody wants to PROD a notable company. We’re weak on autonomous driving info, which is why this got my attention. TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)} 01:28, 16 December 2019 (UTC) reply

Which is what I said in the nomination, "The section about HD mapping needed for self-drive cars is an interesting idea for an article, but this profile of a start-up isn't it." Cabayi ( talk) 09:16, 16 December 2019 (UTC) reply

I added some more info and sources to show depth and breadth of coverage, and not just funding news. Of particular interest is the reporting that the company's software is already on the road, distinguishing it from other startups. On a side note, the Financial Times coverage will also be helpful for beefing up the self-driving car article, which was flagged almost two years ago for needing organization cleanup. TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)} 19:13, 16 December 2019 (UTC) reply

• Keep. Needs cleanup, but if you cut out the junk news about funding, there are a few features, and a Harvard Business School case study as well.
  • A woman of influence: Wei Luo looks for the 'geospatial connection', Silicon Valley Business Journal
  • Founded by former Google and Apple engineers, DeepMap is mapping the future for self-driving cars
  • The 17 best new startups that have launched this year, Business Insider
  • Group of Google Veterans Launch Self-Driving Tech Company, Bloomberg
  • Dozens of rivals in all-out mapping war as they battle for self-driving car payoff, Seattle Times
  • DeepMap: Charting the Road Ahead For Autonomous Vehicles, Harvard Business School Case Collection
  • CB Insights: Here are the top 100 AI companies in the world
  • 29 start-ups that prove Silicon Valley innovation isn’t dead, CNBC

70.240.207.189 ( talk) 18:44, 18 December 2019 (UTC) reply

• Delete While there is lots of "coverage", none of the articles (which have been published in reliable sources and those publishers are functionally Independent from the company) contain Independent Content. As per WP:ORGIND, 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. The articles I have found (including ones in the article and above) rely entirely on information provided by the company. Topic therefore fails WP:NCORP/ WP:GNG. HighKing ⁺⁺ 15:01, 29 December 2019 (UTC) reply

• Keep - I think this one scrapes through on GNG, and the article has been improved since the original nomination. Bookscale ( talk) 22:49, 30 December 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Hi Bookscale, can you point to any sources that meet the criteria for establishing notability? From WP:ORGIND, articles 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. Looking at the sources listed above:
    • This from BizJournals is based entirely on an interview with the COO (a source very much affiliated to the company) and fails WP:ORGIND
    • The VentureBeat article is likewise based on an interview with Wu, the CEO and information provided by the company. Also fails WP:ORGIND.
    • This from Business Insider is a short description of the company in a list of 16 other companies, but contains no in-depth information, fails WP:CORPDEPTH and no "Independent Content", fails WP:ORGIND.
    • This video clip is provided by the company, fails WP:ORGIND.
    • This from Seattle Times relies on an interview with the COO and contains no "Independent Content" (as per WP:ORGIND), fails WP:ORGIND.
    • This case study is difficult to assess but appears to have been done in conjunction with the company itself.
    • This from Venture Beat is a trivial mention of the name of the company, fails WP:CORPDEPTH.
    • This from CNBC is a small description in a list of startups, contains no "Independent Content" (fails WP:ORGIND) and has no in-depth information (fails WP:CORPDEPTH).
  • All that these articles show is that the company has a functioning marketing department and their executives are doing their jobs by promoting the company by getting noticed, being available for interviews, providing quotes and information packs, etc (the curse of churnalism). There are no analyst reports on the company, no reviews of their software from independent testers and no experts even reviewing their approach to the problem and therefore providing some independent analysis. HighKing ⁺⁺ 19:28, 31 December 2019 (UTC) reply
    • Comment - you obviously don't have any experience of how most media works these days, a large amount of media articles are largely based on sources within companies such as press releases and the like. In any case, I don't see how things like an interview with a CEO or a COO disqualify the information from being a reliable source - it's not written or produced by the company, is it, it's done by someone independent to the company? I think you're taking too strict a view about what is a source in order to justify your view that the WP article should be deleted. Only the Business Insider and Venture Beat articles of themselves would not meet the criteria, but there are plenty more there to justify the information presented on the Wikipedia page. Bookscale ( talk) 05:02, 1 January 2020 (UTC) reply
      • Response If you don't understand our guidelines for organizations ( WP:NCORP) you should have said. Your description of how the media works, above, is *specifically* the type of article that we have decided does not count towards establishing notability. If you believe my "view" is "too strict", it would be most helpful if you could point out precisely where I have erred. Please see WP:ORGIND in particular which directly addresses the points you've made, specifically the section "Examples of dependent coverage" which do not count towards notability which states: any material that is substantially based on such press releases even if published by independent sources (churnalism) and other works in which the company, corporation, organization, or group talks about itself - whether published by itself or reprinted. Also, the definition of "Independent Content" is easy to grasp: 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. If you could point to any of the sources that contains original/independent opinion/analysis/fact checking/investigation about the company, that would be helpful. I don't believe any exists... HighKing ⁺⁺ 11:43, 2 January 2020 (UTC) reply
        • I found more DeepMap coverage in the Wall Street Journal, about Chinese Giant AliBaba Group Holdings being one of the owners of the company. DeepMap's co-founder Wu is quoted in the article. [ [1]]. It's paywalled but I can email the text to any voters or closers who'd like to review it. TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)} 22:41, 3 January 2020 (UTC) reply
          • The criteria for establishing notability for companies/organizations as per WP:NCORP is for multiple sources (at least two) of significant coverage (same as GNG) with in-depth information on the company (not just a brief description or mention) and (this next bit is really important!) containing "Independent Content". This is where NCORP clarifies what is required for coverage to be deemed "independent of the subject". As defined by WP:ORGIND, "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. You say that you've found "coverage" in the WSJ but the test isn't mere "coverage" in RS. A non-paywalled copy can be seen here but it is a mere mention-in-passing and fails WP:CORPDEPTH. Also, the opinion provided in the article about the company (as you've pointed out) is from the company's co-founder and as such is not "Independent Content" and fails WP:ORGIND. HighKing ⁺⁺ 16:36, 4 January 2020 (UTC) reply
            • Actually, you’re making an incorrect assumption. The Wall Street Journal reporting was about the company’s funding, and they reached out to the CEO for a statement after they had done their research. Every single thing in the article is sourced from independent third-party coverage. This one’s at worst a no consensus, but if you remove the delete vote due to perceived inside editing that was a red herring, yet was surprisingly not struck, it’s more clearly a keep. TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)} 19:36, 4 January 2020 (UTC) reply
              • Assuming that the link I attached is the same article, then I wholeheartedly agree that there may be some Incorrect assumptions (but not by me). It would be very misleading to describe the article as being *about* the company's funding - it isn't and not even close. The article has just over 2,000 words and has a headline of Chinese Cash That Powered Silicon Valley Is Suddenly Toxic. The article is about the fact recently and due to a number of factors, many companies in Silicon Valley do not disclose investments from Chinese investors. It starts with one example "Silicon Valley startup Pilot AI Labs Inc" and their investor Digital Horizon Capital. It details lots of research on direct foreign investment from China. It recounts the sentiment from the US Government and the reaction from American VCs. It then provides lots of details on Digital Horizon and their Chinese connections. It mentions another Beijing-based investor, Sinovation Ventures who shut their Palo Alto offices. It includes the position of US policy-makers. We're now over 50% into the long and detailed article and no mention of this company. The article goes on to talk about the FBI's efforts to brief companies on cybersecurity and espionage threats. It includes some information on the effect this is having on various companies such as Baidu Ventures, Fosun International and the venture arm of Alibaba - which is a link to Deepmap. So three quarters of the way into this detailed article, we find our first mention of Deepmap and all it says is that it is reported that the company did not disclose Alibaba as an investor *after* raising funds in 2018. A total of 118 words from a 2,000+ word article which is about 6% of the total number of words. This is simply a mention-in-passing, nothing more. I stand by my earlier analysis that this article does not meet the criteria for establishing notability, it fails WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:SIGCOV. HighKing ⁺⁺ 14:40, 6 January 2020 (UTC) reply
            • TimTempleton is exactly right. HighKing, you're taking an incorrect approach about this article - it is notable and the sources are (overall) reliable and independent. Bookscale ( talk) 12:39, 6 January 2020 (UTC) reply
              • None of what you've said makes any sense especially if you don't take the time to provide detail. Sources cannot be looked at "overall", they can only be looked at individually. HighKing ⁺⁺ 14:40, 6 January 2020 (UTC) reply
                • Thanks for finding a non-paywalled source. I never meant to imply that the Journal article was ONLY about DeepMap, because it is part of the overall reporting about foreign funding. I offered to send the text to anyone interested. It is notable to be included in the reporting - after all, there are a lot of companies not mentioned in the Journal's article. Since the Journal is independent journalism, and everyone can read the text of the business article now, it's not hard to conclude that it's misleading to say that the Journal's coverage is just an opinion. But there's enough coverage without it to satisfy all but the harshest deletionists, and I see excessive funding news increasingly being used to attack notability, which is why I didn't bother adding it. The closer can decide where things stand. TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)} 20:19, 6 January 2020 (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.