Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/GoodAI

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. ✗plicit 12:16, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

GoodAI[edit]

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

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

No indication of being notable. Fails WP:NCORP. scope_creep^Talk 14:14, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:46, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Czech Republic-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:46, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or redirect to Marek Rosa (though that article itself needs a thorough rewrite...) Jdcooper (talk) 16:32, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Why are you saying that this fails notability guidelines? I see two of the references meet the notability criteria of being second-party independant reliable sources that cover the company in detail. (Specifically references 2 and 11.) Am I missing something there? Is that number insufficient? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ronin Librarian (talk • contribs) 19:33, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Specifically, I may be wrong, but I believe that it passes notability guidelines. I used the following four articles to establish notability, all of which are written by independant second-hand reporting sources that go into varying degrees of depth about GoodAI specifically:

About GoodAI https://www.economist.com/1843/2017/07/05/teaching-robots-right-from-wrong

General AI Challenge https://qz.com/911515/theres-5-million-in-prize-money-to-build-facebooks-vision-for-artificial-general-intelligence/

https://www.redherring.com/investor-interview/goodai-founder-marek-rosa-future-ai-important-mustnt-panic/

GoodAI Grants https://www.czechcrunch.cz/2020/08/miliony-na-podporu-vyvoje-obecne-umele-inteligence-goodai-marka-rosy-vypisuje-stedry-grant-pro-vyzkumniky/

unsigned comment added by Ronin Librarian (talk • contribs) 2:55, 15 April 2021

Another WP:SPA writing a paid article. The first references above, is a press-release, the rest fail WP:ORGIND and WP:SIRS. They are not independent. scope_creep^Talk 10:04, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Scope creep: I agree regarding those sources except I don't see how the Quartz article isn't independent from GoodAI. Are its content or its author connected to GoodAI? — MarkH₂₁^talk 05:16, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 10:39, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The Quartz article and Czech Crunch article appear to be significant coverage from independent secondary reliable sources (although clarification is needed on a claim that it may not be independent?), so there might be a case for WP:GNG/WP:NCORP here. — MarkH₂₁^talk 05:44, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The first is an annoucement of a competition, and a partnership as it fails WP:CORPDEPTH. It comes from a press-release and is not independent. The second one is an interview with the Marek Rosa, so it dependent source. It fails WP:ORGIND. It is not organisationaly independent from the company. It is an interview with the founder. So it fails WP:SIRS. The core problem here, one a trade journal starts talking to the company directly, then it is not independent. It a not a true source. Most of the trade operate like that, as they supposed journalist, but they are not really journalists as would get from e.g. the old Baltimore Sun, or the LA times, or AP News, or the Guardian or the Telegraph. They don't understand the tech, as it very complex, so they operate by inteviews and what the company puts out, so they're not creating journalistic stories, in the same sense of the Baltimore Sun. It is really jaundiced articles they put out, that are really only valid until next issue of the mag or stories. scope_creep^Talk 07:30, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I agree with the analysis of references above - those references fail NCORP. WP:NCORP requires multiple sources (at least two) of deep or significant coverage with in-depth information *on the company* and (this bit is important!) containing "Independent Content". "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. That means, nothing that relies on company information or announcements or interviews, etc. None of the references in the article meet the criteria. They are either standard business listings or short articles based on an "announcement" by the company - all of the articles I can find are within the company's echo chamber and I have been unable to find any "Independent Content" as per ORGIND. Topic fails WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 17:01, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As per HighKing. MrsSnoozyTurtle (talk) 00:25, 23 April 2021 (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.