Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nemesysco

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. MBisanz ^talk 03:05, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nemesysco[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)

At the moment, the article exists only as an anti-Nemesysco hit piece. I tried to find sources to consider a rewrite, but nearly everything available was either a press release, a (likely paid) interview, or a promotional piece masquerading as an article. Though a search for it's name reveals many results, the only ones that can be considered independent, reliable, verifiable, and secondary are passing mentions. Nemesysco does not appear to meet WP:NCORP. Vermont (talk) 17:35, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:39, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:39, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I'm puzzled by the suggestion that there are not enough sources to meet the notability threshold, especially when this relatively short article already has 11 independent sources cited. The very first one, for instance, is an academic journal article, and its treatment of Nemesysco can hardly be considered "passing." The article is an analysis of the reliability of Nemesysco products, and it uses the word "Nemesysco" 15 times. The article from Science also checks all the boxes for the WP:CORP notability guidelines. I'd be disinclined to change my vote unless someone can explain to me what is wrong with those two sources, at the very least.

Having reviewed all the sources, I'd categorize this not as "an anti-Nemesysco hit piece," but an article about a company that reliable sources agree makes shitty products. As long as those reliable sources are cited -- and they are -- this page is no better a candidate for deletion than Bernie Madoff, snake oil, or astrology. 2600:1702:16E1:68E0:E82A:BF59:4F06:37DD (talk) 19:43, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, all the coverage is trivial. Including the analysis of their products. WP:NCORP clearly states that the person who is writing about the product had to try it themselves and it seems like none of the sources did. For instance while the academic journal article does mention Nemesysco and their products multiple times, it is only in the context of quoting company press releases about those products. Therefore, the source is not reliable. The same also goes for the other sources. --Adamant1 (talk) 13:08, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It could be worth taking a closer look at the cited sources. The first one gives the company's product extensive treatment, from pages 179 to 187, including a discussion of the company, its founder, and the reviewers' experience analyzing and running the code on which the product is based. The DOJ report also includes an extensive discussion of the product (pages 14-19), and it includes detailed reporting on the results of the authors' own tests of the validity of results obtained from Nemesysco's products. The same is true of the University of Florida study (pages 35-41).

In any event, I'm having trouble finding where WP:NCORP says that any such rule exists. That rule wouldn't make any sense anyway. If the WHO countries seeded a joint venture to find a COVID-19 vaccine, would that venture not be notable until the vaccine was injected into the arm of a reliable source? Is SpaceX's notability contingent on whether a reporter has personally gone to space in one of its spaceships? Can he just ride the space shuttle, or does he have to fly it personally? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1702:16E1:68E0:F0F8:FE24:FC05:F994 (talk) 21:16, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As I said above, the company is mentioned in the articles, but all the content is from press releases and similar sources that don't count. Not from a secondary neutral perspective. For instance the semanticscholar.org study only seems quote their website and directly from them when they are mentioned. For instance "All this is possible, according to Nemesysco" Isn't the authors' own point of view and they aren't claiming it is. Also three times the company is mentioned it's cited at the end as "(Nemesysco home page)." So it's not worth a closer look, because I already looked and they clearly don't qualify. I'd also say the same for the ncrjrs.gov website since they are connected to the company through giving them a grant and are a not neutral buyer of their products. The DOJ also genearlly has a large invested interested in making various lie detector methods seem creditable. So, that source is a massive no go IMO. On what WP:NCORP says, product reviews (which the articles are structured as) have to be significant for it to qualify as notable and it says "Significant reviews are where the author has personally experienced or tested the product." Also it says "the reviews must be published outside of purely local or narrow (highly specialized) interest publications." I'd say the DOJ website just that. I think Space X's rockets and Covid-19 vaccines (which doesn't even exist yet, and it's not a company or product anyway but whatever) would qualify under the whole "significant or demonstrable effects on culture, society, entertainment, athletics, economies, history, etc" thing. But notability guidelines for products are different then those for organizations anyway. --Adamant1 (talk) 02:53, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ah. I think I see where the disagreement is coming from. It seems like you're treating these sources as product reviews, which seems like the wrong way to handle them. They are articles from peer-reviewed journals, which are the most reliable of WP:SOURCETYPES.

Where I think I may be starting to agree with you, though, is an the distinction you're making between discussion of the company and the discussion of its products. Maybe it would make more sense to convert the article to one about LVA, the primary product that these sources are discussing? 2600:1702:16E1:68E0:78CF:A909:57AC:4E33 (talk) 00:28, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Excellent analysis by Adamant1. The references do not appear to contain sufficient independent content, fails GNG/WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 16:29, 24 March 2020 (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.