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 Delete.
JBW (
talk) 22:38, 23 January 2024 (UTC)reply
Publications are not properly focused on the company, neither they are reliable enough to grant meeting NCORP criteria
Gavrover (
talk) 11:42, 12 January 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete – seems like it's based on press releases. TLA(talk) 04:41, 14 January 2024 (UTC)reply
Thanks for the feedback. The information from the page is from earned coverage in several unpaid articles. I'm also happy to explain more on context if helpful.
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
✗plicit 14:57, 19 January 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete This is a company therefore GNG/
WP:NCORP requires at least two deep or
significant sources with
each source containing
"Independent Content" showing
in-depth information *on the company*. "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. Analysis of the source posted above:
Venturebeat article relies entirely on announcements from the company and interviews/quotes from their execs with no "Independent Content" as per ORGIND.
DataAMI article suffers the same flaws. Fails ORGIND.
Google is a partner company, not independent, fails ORGIND.
Chicago Tribune relies entirely on an interview with the founder, fails ORGIND
The New Stack article relies entirely on info provided by the company and their execs and has no "Independent Content", fails ORGIND.
"Independent Content" is not simply content that is published by somebody independent of the topic company, but content which contains "original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation" which is also in-depth. I'm unable to find any mention of the topic company in your first reference, but as a blog post (self publishing), it is not considered a "
reliable source" anyway and would not meet our criteria for establishing notability. Similarly, LinkedIn is self-publishing and is not considered a reliable source. Even leaving that aside, the LinkedIn article relies entirely on information from the founder/company and has no "Independent Content" as per the definition at
WP:NCORP.
HighKing++ 21:47, 23 January 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.
The result was Delete.
JBW (
talk) 22:38, 23 January 2024 (UTC)reply
Publications are not properly focused on the company, neither they are reliable enough to grant meeting NCORP criteria
Gavrover (
talk) 11:42, 12 January 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete – seems like it's based on press releases. TLA(talk) 04:41, 14 January 2024 (UTC)reply
Thanks for the feedback. The information from the page is from earned coverage in several unpaid articles. I'm also happy to explain more on context if helpful.
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
✗plicit 14:57, 19 January 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete This is a company therefore GNG/
WP:NCORP requires at least two deep or
significant sources with
each source containing
"Independent Content" showing
in-depth information *on the company*. "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. Analysis of the source posted above:
Venturebeat article relies entirely on announcements from the company and interviews/quotes from their execs with no "Independent Content" as per ORGIND.
DataAMI article suffers the same flaws. Fails ORGIND.
Google is a partner company, not independent, fails ORGIND.
Chicago Tribune relies entirely on an interview with the founder, fails ORGIND
The New Stack article relies entirely on info provided by the company and their execs and has no "Independent Content", fails ORGIND.
"Independent Content" is not simply content that is published by somebody independent of the topic company, but content which contains "original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation" which is also in-depth. I'm unable to find any mention of the topic company in your first reference, but as a blog post (self publishing), it is not considered a "
reliable source" anyway and would not meet our criteria for establishing notability. Similarly, LinkedIn is self-publishing and is not considered a reliable source. Even leaving that aside, the LinkedIn article relies entirely on information from the founder/company and has no "Independent Content" as per the definition at
WP:NCORP.
HighKing++ 21:47, 23 January 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.