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.
Redirect to
Ilya Sutskever; while there are other co-founders the press coverage is clear that he is the primary instigator (
CNBC,
AP). And there is nothing other than that press release to be the topic of an article.
Walsh90210 (
talk)
15:56, 21 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete. As of now, even a redirect is premature. Announcements made a couple of days ago regarding future plans for a company that has done nothing yet belong in press releases, not encyclopaedias.
AndyTheGrump (
talk)
17:14, 21 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Keep - It's obviously clear that it's notable because the company's incorporation has been extensively covered by at least a dozen highly reputable news organizations, such as Bloomberg, The Verge, Axios, CNN, AP News, CNBC, New York Times and others. The article is worthy and notable to exist merely as a stub. Redirect does not make sense, as other notable people are involved in the organisation, including former Apple AI lead,
Daniel Gross (entrepreneur), and former OpenAI researcher
Daniel Levy. Additionally, Ilya having co-founded OpenAI carries significant credibility Mr Vilitalk04:44, 22 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Keep - It's been mentioned in many of the most reputable sources and the founders are very notable. If you don't keep it at least as a stub, then the Wikipedia pages about the founders have nothing to reference. It's just a gap in Wikipedia's coverage. Obviously if it's
WP:TOOSOON, it can be deleted and added back later, but it seems wiser to leave it as a stub at this point.
Kfein (
talk)
04:56, 22 June 2024 (UTC)reply
The question as to whether it can be deleted is what is being discussed now. Saying it is discussed in sources does not help at AfD. We need to discuss the actual sources.
Sirfurboy🏄 (
talk)
18:38, 22 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Your argument appears to be we should keep it because maybe we will have more time to think about it in a month? What is the policy reason to keep it?
Sirfurboy🏄 (
talk)
20:27, 24 June 2024 (UTC)reply
My point is that more reliable sources may write substantive pieces about the company within the next month, expanding the scope of the article and putting to rest some of the concerns about notability. Even if this question were revisited in a year, no harm would be done. The article as it is now is perfectly appropriate and likely of value to users of Wikipedia.
Kfein (
talk)
21:16, 24 June 2024 (UTC)reply
If this, for some reason, becomes notable in a year, then any editor may apply for a
WP:REFUND to get this page restored, and to develop said article. How valuable that would be is a matter of opinion. There is not really much in this article that could make it into the article of a notable version of the company. The sources here would not make the cut, and what makes it notable will be quite different from what we have now. It would be the CORPDEPTH sources that drive the creation, not these 5 sentences. But in any case, that offer is there for all deleted articles. Nothing is really deleted, it is merely tucked away safely and can always be refunded should a non notable topic one day gain notability. That being the case, there is no reason to keep this published in mainspace in the hope that one day this just may possibly be notable.
Sirfurboy🏄 (
talk)
07:59, 25 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Thank you for the explanation of the restoration process. But there is plenty of reason to keep this article intact. People researching the founders of the company may want more details on the company itself, and people researching the company or competitors would find the article of value. This is a topic of great interest lately and Wikipedia offering in-depth coverage is of great benefit to Wikipedia users. The fact that so many major news outlets covered the founding of this company is proof of the widespread interest. The fact that there is a complete and detailed article
Removal of Sam Altman from OpenAI is further proof. That article could be improved by linking to this article, for instance, in the Aftermath section.
Kfein (
talk)
14:13, 25 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Redirect to
Ilya Sutskever. I don't see any evidence this meets
GNG or
NCORP; the coverage so far is enough to support inclusion on Sutskever's page but I found no in-depth coverage of the company beyond the announcement of its founding. I'd be open to reassessing if the editors arguing to keep would present some of the "extensive coverage" they are arguing exists; all I see is outlets picking up the press release on its founding, and every article I looked at was essentially the same as the two linked by Walsh90210. Since there is coverage with respect to Sutskever and the company is mentioned on his page already, I don't see any issue with a redirect.
Dylnuge(
Talk •
Edits)17:16, 22 June 2024 (UTC)reply
In my opinion, this organisation's founding has independent notability due to the events related to the
temporary firing of sam altman leading up to the resignation of key people at OpenAI, such as
Jan Leike and Ilya Sutskever
Which are discussed in various sources including examples below:
This isn't a routine company incorporation. There's a lot of history behind it that should be noted, as well as the other cofounders all having strong crediblity and notability themselves. I vote that the article remains a stub for the time being, or at worst case, drafted. A redirect here does not make sense.
Mr vilitalk18:26, 22 June 2024 (UTC)reply
That isn't going to pass muster for an NCORP AfD. You are saying that the startup inherits notability from notable founders. It doesn't. Under NCORP we need
WP:SIRS - significant coverage in independent reliable secondary sources. For significance you need to consider
WP:CORPDEPTH which says Deep or significant coverage provides an overview, description, commentary, survey, study, discussion, analysis, or evaluation of the product, company, or organization. Such coverage provides an organization with a level of attention that extends well beyond brief mentions and routine announcements, and makes it possible to write more than a very brief, incomplete stub about the organization.Sirfurboy🏄 (
talk)
18:48, 22 June 2024 (UTC)reply
pretty much every news source is significantly covering the incorporation beyond
WP:MILL, they are all talking about the history of events leading up to the incorporation which is not a usual scenario.
Mr vilitalk18:52, 22 June 2024 (UTC)reply
WP:PRIMARYNEWS aside (and that's important, actually, because we need secondary sources), no such sources have been shown to exist yet. The above two certainly are not at CORPDEPTH. Not even close.
Sirfurboy🏄 (
talk)
12:20, 23 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Keep - The founding of Safe Superintelligence Inc. is recognized on a world wide level. One major reason is the history of
Open AI, which is deeply connected to the founding of this company, see
temporary firing of sam altman and the intense discussion about
AI safety. Some additional sources are:
1. See
WP:NEWSORGINDIA. But in any case, suffers as for 2-8 below
2-8.
WP:PRIMARYNEWS. Someone announces they are doing something. That is a primary source. The notability of the founder is not inherited by the company. Note that all of these are the same. Just an announcement that someone notable intends to do something. These do not meet CORPDEPTH.
Sirfurboy🏄 (
talk)
20:23, 24 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Redirect to
Ilya Sutskever per above until something happens such that this has established notability, without prejudice against recreating if this ends up being a thing. jp×
g🗯️07:31, 27 June 2024 (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.
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.
Redirect to
Ilya Sutskever; while there are other co-founders the press coverage is clear that he is the primary instigator (
CNBC,
AP). And there is nothing other than that press release to be the topic of an article.
Walsh90210 (
talk)
15:56, 21 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete. As of now, even a redirect is premature. Announcements made a couple of days ago regarding future plans for a company that has done nothing yet belong in press releases, not encyclopaedias.
AndyTheGrump (
talk)
17:14, 21 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Keep - It's obviously clear that it's notable because the company's incorporation has been extensively covered by at least a dozen highly reputable news organizations, such as Bloomberg, The Verge, Axios, CNN, AP News, CNBC, New York Times and others. The article is worthy and notable to exist merely as a stub. Redirect does not make sense, as other notable people are involved in the organisation, including former Apple AI lead,
Daniel Gross (entrepreneur), and former OpenAI researcher
Daniel Levy. Additionally, Ilya having co-founded OpenAI carries significant credibility Mr Vilitalk04:44, 22 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Keep - It's been mentioned in many of the most reputable sources and the founders are very notable. If you don't keep it at least as a stub, then the Wikipedia pages about the founders have nothing to reference. It's just a gap in Wikipedia's coverage. Obviously if it's
WP:TOOSOON, it can be deleted and added back later, but it seems wiser to leave it as a stub at this point.
Kfein (
talk)
04:56, 22 June 2024 (UTC)reply
The question as to whether it can be deleted is what is being discussed now. Saying it is discussed in sources does not help at AfD. We need to discuss the actual sources.
Sirfurboy🏄 (
talk)
18:38, 22 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Your argument appears to be we should keep it because maybe we will have more time to think about it in a month? What is the policy reason to keep it?
Sirfurboy🏄 (
talk)
20:27, 24 June 2024 (UTC)reply
My point is that more reliable sources may write substantive pieces about the company within the next month, expanding the scope of the article and putting to rest some of the concerns about notability. Even if this question were revisited in a year, no harm would be done. The article as it is now is perfectly appropriate and likely of value to users of Wikipedia.
Kfein (
talk)
21:16, 24 June 2024 (UTC)reply
If this, for some reason, becomes notable in a year, then any editor may apply for a
WP:REFUND to get this page restored, and to develop said article. How valuable that would be is a matter of opinion. There is not really much in this article that could make it into the article of a notable version of the company. The sources here would not make the cut, and what makes it notable will be quite different from what we have now. It would be the CORPDEPTH sources that drive the creation, not these 5 sentences. But in any case, that offer is there for all deleted articles. Nothing is really deleted, it is merely tucked away safely and can always be refunded should a non notable topic one day gain notability. That being the case, there is no reason to keep this published in mainspace in the hope that one day this just may possibly be notable.
Sirfurboy🏄 (
talk)
07:59, 25 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Thank you for the explanation of the restoration process. But there is plenty of reason to keep this article intact. People researching the founders of the company may want more details on the company itself, and people researching the company or competitors would find the article of value. This is a topic of great interest lately and Wikipedia offering in-depth coverage is of great benefit to Wikipedia users. The fact that so many major news outlets covered the founding of this company is proof of the widespread interest. The fact that there is a complete and detailed article
Removal of Sam Altman from OpenAI is further proof. That article could be improved by linking to this article, for instance, in the Aftermath section.
Kfein (
talk)
14:13, 25 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Redirect to
Ilya Sutskever. I don't see any evidence this meets
GNG or
NCORP; the coverage so far is enough to support inclusion on Sutskever's page but I found no in-depth coverage of the company beyond the announcement of its founding. I'd be open to reassessing if the editors arguing to keep would present some of the "extensive coverage" they are arguing exists; all I see is outlets picking up the press release on its founding, and every article I looked at was essentially the same as the two linked by Walsh90210. Since there is coverage with respect to Sutskever and the company is mentioned on his page already, I don't see any issue with a redirect.
Dylnuge(
Talk •
Edits)17:16, 22 June 2024 (UTC)reply
In my opinion, this organisation's founding has independent notability due to the events related to the
temporary firing of sam altman leading up to the resignation of key people at OpenAI, such as
Jan Leike and Ilya Sutskever
Which are discussed in various sources including examples below:
This isn't a routine company incorporation. There's a lot of history behind it that should be noted, as well as the other cofounders all having strong crediblity and notability themselves. I vote that the article remains a stub for the time being, or at worst case, drafted. A redirect here does not make sense.
Mr vilitalk18:26, 22 June 2024 (UTC)reply
That isn't going to pass muster for an NCORP AfD. You are saying that the startup inherits notability from notable founders. It doesn't. Under NCORP we need
WP:SIRS - significant coverage in independent reliable secondary sources. For significance you need to consider
WP:CORPDEPTH which says Deep or significant coverage provides an overview, description, commentary, survey, study, discussion, analysis, or evaluation of the product, company, or organization. Such coverage provides an organization with a level of attention that extends well beyond brief mentions and routine announcements, and makes it possible to write more than a very brief, incomplete stub about the organization.Sirfurboy🏄 (
talk)
18:48, 22 June 2024 (UTC)reply
pretty much every news source is significantly covering the incorporation beyond
WP:MILL, they are all talking about the history of events leading up to the incorporation which is not a usual scenario.
Mr vilitalk18:52, 22 June 2024 (UTC)reply
WP:PRIMARYNEWS aside (and that's important, actually, because we need secondary sources), no such sources have been shown to exist yet. The above two certainly are not at CORPDEPTH. Not even close.
Sirfurboy🏄 (
talk)
12:20, 23 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Keep - The founding of Safe Superintelligence Inc. is recognized on a world wide level. One major reason is the history of
Open AI, which is deeply connected to the founding of this company, see
temporary firing of sam altman and the intense discussion about
AI safety. Some additional sources are:
1. See
WP:NEWSORGINDIA. But in any case, suffers as for 2-8 below
2-8.
WP:PRIMARYNEWS. Someone announces they are doing something. That is a primary source. The notability of the founder is not inherited by the company. Note that all of these are the same. Just an announcement that someone notable intends to do something. These do not meet CORPDEPTH.
Sirfurboy🏄 (
talk)
20:23, 24 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Redirect to
Ilya Sutskever per above until something happens such that this has established notability, without prejudice against recreating if this ends up being a thing. jp×
g🗯️07:31, 27 June 2024 (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.
