Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Daedalean

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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. Stifle (talk) 12:27, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Daedalean

[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

Daedalean (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

NCORP requires more than "coverage" of funding rounds, partnerships, new offices, new executives, joint project, etc. These are all regurgitated PR and announcements. The "AI Prize" is not remotely prestigious enough to establish notability. None of the references contain in-depth "Independent Content" and I'm unable to locate anything that does. HighKing++ 12:25, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Let's take a look at wp:ncorp rule which helps us to estimate which sources are good for evaluating company's notability. Here I copy the essence of the rule: 


Individual sources must be evaluated separately and independently of each other and meet the four criteria below to determine if a source qualifies towards establishing notability.

Contain significant coverage addressing the subject of the article directly and in depth.

Be completely independent of the article subject.

Meet the standard for being a reliable source.

Be a secondary source; primary and tertiary sources do not count towards establishing notability.

An individual source must meet all of these criteria to be counted towards establishing notability; each source needs to be significant, independent, reliable, and secondary. In addition, there must also be multiple such sources to establish notability.
here I list four sources, which go "beyond brief mentions and routine announcements, and makes it possible to write more than a very brief, incomplete stub about the organization".
  • Comment You appear to be ignoring WP:ORGIND and the requirement for "Independent Content" which 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. How can you say that an article based entirely from a company announcement or other PR or quotes or interviews meets NCORP when the journalist is merely regurgitating the information that was provided? Point out where in those articles there is a paragraph that meets both ORGIND and CORPDEPTH. HighKing++ 11:23, 10 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I cannot say that they (articles) are dependent or the journalists were merely regurgitating the information, or using PR announcements. There are many pdf articles with scientific research conducted by and in collaboration with company, so I think we shouldn't say that the website of the organization is the only source for the journalists. Tristana Wors (talk) 15:27, 10 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
so, if to talk from the opposite: what the dependent content is:
    • press releases, press kits, or similar public relations materials
    • any material that is substantially based on such press releases even if published by independent sources (churnalism),
    • advertising and marketing materials by, about, or on behalf of the organization,
      • including pieces like "case studies" or "success stories" by Chambers of Commerce, business incubators, consulting firms, etc.
    • any paid or sponsored articles, posts, and other publications,
    • self-published materials, including vanity press,
    • patents, whether pending or granted,
    • any material written or published, including websites, by the organization, its members, or sources closely associated with it, directly or indirectly,
    • other works in which the company, corporation, organization, or group talks about itself—whether published by itself, or re-printed by other people (for example, self-submitted biographies to Who's Who).
    All the sources I provided above are not press releases, churnalism, paid or sponsored, self-published, patent, any non-staff contributors, etc. Tristana Wors (talk) 15:33, 10 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Response Those references are all PR. If you think otherwise, simply point out any in-depth "Independent Content" in the references. Here's my take on them:
Each reference must meet all of NCORP criteria including CORPDEPTH and ORGIND together. Once you remove the information provided by the company, there's not enough "Independent Content" left to qualify for CORPDEPTH. HighKing++ 19:07, 10 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Those sources all appear to be industry trade publications; these are usually connected to the source or have relationships within the industry. We'd need coverage from more mainstream publications, for the average Joe not in the industry. Oaktree b (talk) 15:35, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Mild keep per comments above both delete and keep, and per GNG and NCORP — some minimum sources are indeed available and not all of them aren't reliable (to my view). Just want to drop here this source [1] which provides some critics, opinion, overview and analysis of the page's subject. 多少 战场 龙 (talk) 09:25, 11 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The question isn't whether the sources are reliable but whether they meet NCORP. I've looked at the reference you provided and it relies *entirely* on an interview with the CEO. Which parts of the reference do you think meets "Independent Content" as per ORGIND? HighKing++ 18:22, 11 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:53, 14 November 2022 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Daedalean&oldid=1123568241"