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 defaulting to keep and w/o prejudice to a future renomination. Ad Orientem ( talk) 04:58, 11 September 2019 (UTC) reply

NewtonX, Inc. (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)

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

An unremarkable startup. Sourcing is in passing and / or WP:SPIP. Does not meet WP:NCORP / WP:CORPDEPTH. K.e.coffman ( talk) 00:32, 24 August 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T) 07:10, 24 August 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T) 07:10, 24 August 2019 (UTC) reply

• Keep. The NewtonX, Inc. article's citations include Tech Crunch [1], VentureBeat [2], Forbes [3], and Inc. [4]--all of which are authoritative publications with respect to the field of business. The fact that these reliable sources discuss NewtonX, Inc. attest to its notability (passes WP:CORP, WP:RS and WP:GNG). desmay ( talk) 02:32, 25 August 2019 (UTC) reply
  • @ Desmay: The Tech Crunch and VentureBeat sources look good; however, the Inc. article only mention NewtonX in a single sentence, and the paragraph about NewtonX in the Forbes article is written by one of the company's co-founders. Do you really think this is enough to pass NCORP? – Lord Bolingbroke ( talk) 21:39, 25 August 2019 (UTC) reply
    • Well, you've acknolwedged that "the Tech Crunch and VentureBeat sources look good". If NewtonX, Inc. wasn't notable, Inc. wouldn't mention it at all. If Forbes has asked the company's co-founder to author an article about Newton X, Inc., don't you think that means that NewtonX, Inc. holds importance and is not just a lemonade stand in a small town? Besides, WP:CORP says that "Arbitrary standards should not be used to create a bias favoring larger organizations or their products" as long as reliable sources, such as those you acknolwedged above, exist. Wikipedia itself has an article called " List of former employees of McKinsey & Company", which includes the company's founders and the article, as it is written now, fullfills the criteria provided in WP:ORGCRIT. desmay ( talk) 20:15, 26 August 2019 (UTC) reply
      • Comment The criteria for notability for companies/organization is fully documented in WP:NCORP and requires references to have in-depth "Independent Content" on the company. "Independent Content" is defined in WP:ORGIND. Desmay, none of those references meet the criteria for establishing notability. The TechCrunch reference is based on an interview with Chastel and there is nothing in the article that is "clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated with the company". The INC article is a mention-in-passing (describing Sascha as the COO/founder of NetwonX, nothing more) and fails WP:ORGIND. The Venturebeat article is based on a company announcements and fails WP:ORGIND. The Forbes article is also a mention in passing (again, describing Sascha Eder, nothing more). HighKing ⁺⁺ 21:36, 28 August 2019 (UTC) reply
• Keep The company raised twelve million dollars in Series A funding alone, a fact that has been reported in various media sources, such as TC and VB. Eliko007 ( talk) 21:26, 26 August 2019 (UTC) reply

Raising funding isn't a notability criteria and never will be. scope_creep ^Talk 12:55, 27 August 2019 (UTC) reply

• Delete An article about about a classic startup that fails WP:NCORP that was specifically meant to address these types of articles. Also asserts WP:ORGIND and WP:CORPDEPTH as the majority of the references are driven by press releases. 8 of the 15 state twelve million dollars in Series A funding. Of the remaining seven, one is non-rs, another one is initial funding, leaving two. One of remaining, the Inc article is a name drop for the company, the remaining is a magazine that markets startups and other general run of the mill business news. Very very poor sourcing. There is no secondary sources whatsoever, they are all primary, run of the mill business news. scope_creep ^Talk 12:55, 27 August 2019 (UTC) reply

Comment: The TechCrunch article was not a press release. It was an article on the company. All of the sourcing for the article are from reliable sources and none of them are press releases. Knox490 ( talk) 20:32, 28 August 2019 (UTC) reply

• Keep. Tech Crunch, VentureBeat, Forbes and Inc. top tier business publications are not easy publications to be noted by. They are major business publications which serve as gatekeepers in terms of what business news is important. The reason why these major publications are covering NewtonX is that it is using cutting technology, namely artificial intelligence (AI) to find experts. And like it or not, we live in technological age where experts have a huge influence on the world and are often in short supply. AI is very important right now and starting to make dramatic results already (For example, AI right can now can shift through stacks of resumes and spit out a select few select resumes of candidates. Recently, a large truck of beer was driven from city to city by a driverless truck). AI is starting to be a big disruptor and game changer and that is why $15M of funding recently went to Newton X. Frankly, even though I took many computer and information systems management courses, the pace of success in AI applications has even surprised me. Knox490 ( talk) 04:09, 28 August 2019 (UTC) reply

Being top tier doesn't indicate the article is notable and every device and piece of software now being developed on the planet is now using some form of AI either for development or in production. The Tech Crunch is reporting 12million in funding, same as the other 8, so it is press release and non-RS. VentureBeat is the same. From Forbes it states Our company grew in its first year That is not independent and is non-RS. The last Inc. is a name drop. Hardly the gatekeepers.

scope_creep ^Talk 11:56, 28 August 2019 (UTC) reply

The TechCrunch article was not a press release. It was an article on the company.

The VentureBeat article indicates: "What struck us about NewtonX is that they’re attempting to create a paradigm shift in the B2B expertise market. Incumbent market research firms, consulting firms, and expert networks used to rely on preexisting pools of expert consultants,” he said. “We believe NewtonX is turning this model on its head by automating custom searches to recruit the best experts in real time for any given client request and, in doing so, is capable of transforming multiple industries." [5]

One of NewtonX's owners essentially said, "its proprietary speech-to-text software enables it to deliver surveys and reports at twice the speed and half the cost of traditional panels". [6]

The funding, technology and news coverage point to NewtonX being a transformational company. Wikipedia should create articles on transformational companies such as NewtonX. Knox490 ( talk) 20:07, 28 August 2019 (UTC) reply

Comment The TechCrunch article is based on an interview with Chastel and fails WP:ORGIND. It is churnalism and contains no "Independent Content" with original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. Both the Inc and Forbes articles are mentions in passing, e.g. "Sascha Eder, COO/Founder of NewtonX" and fails SIGCOV and CORPDEPTH. The Venturebeat article is based on a company announcement and therefore fails WP:ORGIND. HighKing ⁺⁺ 21:43, 28 August 2019 (UTC) reply

• Delete Entirely promotional and not a single reference (including the ones mentioned above) meet the criteria for establishing notability, nor am I able to locate a single reference that meets the criteria. Topic fails GNG and WP:NCORP. HighKing ⁺⁺ 21:36, 28 August 2019 (UTC) reply
• Keep: The article passes WP:GNG; a simple Google search alone provides 227,000 results for NewtonX. [7] There are plenty more sources about this company available than what are currently present in the article.-- AR E N Z O Y 1 6A •t a l k• 12:46, 29 August 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Comment Hey Renzoy16, great!! But your !vote is likely to be discounted (as per WP:GHITS) so perhaps you can link to *any two* references that you believe meet the criteria for establishing notability below and then perhaps some of the Delete !voters will change their minds!. HighKing ⁺⁺ 21:29, 30 August 2019 (UTC) reply
• Delete. Looks like your typical (i.e. non-notable) early stage tech startup. I don't put much weight in TechCrunch or VentureBeat. They're WP:RS, certainly, but they're rather indiscriminate about what they write about. If you're a tech startup and send them a press release, they'll probably cover it. Please see WP:THREE. -- RoySmith (talk) 01:26, 2 September 2019 (UTC) reply

• Keep: This article passes WP:GNG and WP:CORP. While it's obviously a smaller company relatively, enough sources have been written about it to keep the article (these, for example, in addition to the ones mentioned above: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11--it's not that any single one of these articles alone are a "slam dunk" to keeping the article, but combined together, they show the subject meets GNG). I also think that if there are any problems with the article in its current form, they are fixable, per WP:RUBBISH. -- 1990'sguy ( talk) 00:08, 4 September 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Response Your admission that not "any single one of these articles alone" meets the criteria for establishing notability essentially translates to your agreement that according to our own guidelines this topic fails GNG and WP:NCORP. Also, the references you've listed *all* fail the criteria for example funding notices, articles based on company announcements, podcasts with people affiliated with the company and articles written by people affiliated with the company. The examples you've provided are explicitly listed as *not* meeting the criteria for establishing notability as they fail WP:ORGIND and/or WP:CORPDEPTH and/or are "trivial coverage". HighKing ⁺⁺ 13:55, 10 September 2019 (UTC) reply
• Delete. Come on people, learn how to recognize press releases when they bite you on the nose. Knox490 claims, above, that the Venture Beat article is original writing, not a press release, and cites this quote: What struck us about NewtonX is that they’re attempting to create a paradigm shift in the B2B expertise market. That same line was used by Pulse 2.0, by VC News Daily, by Built in NYC, etc. Perhaps all those publications just happened to think of that sentence on their own? -- RoySmith (talk) 18:26, 10 September 2019 (UTC) reply

Ooops, I didn't remember that I'd !voted already in this AfD, so striking the duplicate. The comment still holds, though. -- RoySmith (talk) 23:20, 10 September 2019 (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.