Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Numenta

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. Bare assertions that sources "can be found" have been challenged and the purported sources not produced. In line with WP:BURDEN, I am obligated to give a lower weight to these !votes and declare that the consensus is in favour of deletion. Stifle (talk) 11:14, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Numenta[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)

Does not meet notability standards of WP:CORP. All references are from the company's own sites or from their own white papers. Tagged with Proposed deletion tag, then removed by anonymous user a few hours later. If you have any questions, please contact me at my talk page. Ian Manka 02:45, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Business, Advertising, Companies, and Technology. If you have any questions, please contact me at my talk page. Ian Manka 02:45, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2022 April 24. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 03:06, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:33, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Many refs available over the years. StrayBolt (talk) 23:05, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:25, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Though I appreciate the edits of StrayBolt to find independent sources, a single Harvard Business Review article and a single Wired article (which reads like a press release about their new products) doesn't, to me, seem to pass WP:ORGIND. The Google Play app no longer seems to exist and the reference used here seems to a press release, as well. I hope that we get some additional discussion about these sources. Ian Manka (my talk page) 05:27, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I added a couple more refs, some about Numenta Anomaly Benchmark. StrayBolt (talk) 08:10, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Loads of independent reliable sources can be found by clicking on the word "scholar" in the nomination statement. Some of them have been added to the article. Phil Bridger (talk) 08:16, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- None relevant though. Lots of discussion about the application of their algos and technology, I don't see any in-depth information on the company. Perhaps you can provide a link? HighKing⁺⁺ 17:08, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Software and Computing. StrayBolt (talk) 17:31, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:30, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is a company/organization therefore NCORP guidelines apply. There are particular criteria for establishing the notability of a company. Unless blatantly obvious, I'm assuming all the sources are reliable and the publishers are corporately independent from the topic organization - but there's more requirements than just "RS" for establishing notability.

The topic is a company therefore we require references that discuss the *company* in detail. "Lots of product reviews" and discussions about the application of the technology is not sufficient for establishing notability of a company.
As per WP:SIRS *each* reference must meet the criteria for establishing notability - the quantity of coverage is irrelevant so long as we find a minimum of two
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. This is usually the criteria where most references fail. References cannot rely only on information provided by the company, quotations, press releases, announcements, interviews fail ORGIND. Whatever is left over must also meet CORPDEPTH.

The only reference that qualifies is the Harvard Business Review that has written on a number of occasions about the company and although I haven't managed to read the article yet, I've read many similar articles from the HBR and I'm happy to assume it will be of the same quality. But we need multiple references and none of the other references meet the criteria for establishing notability of the company. As things currently stand, with only one reference that meets the criteria, topic fails WP:NCORP. I unable to locate another reference that meets the criteria but I'm happy to change my mind if something turns up. HighKing⁺⁺ 17:08, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

For what it's worth, I also attempted to find other articles that met the WP:NCORP (and other) standards but gave up after a while searching. Ian Manka (my talk page) 00:04, 10 May 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.