Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zest AI

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 12:14, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Zest AI[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)

I had accepted this some time back but a fellow editor felt it isn't as notable. Hence, nominating to see what others feel. This is what the fellow editor said The petitioner might argue that the entity got articles published at The Washington Post and Financial Times; without checking the fact that the writers are PR professionals and Freelance contributors. I would not like to identify them over this thread because this information is personal identification details which will be a direct violation of Wikipedia guidelines. But, somebody wants to Google them then please feel free. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 21:19, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 21:19, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:52, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:50, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete 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 all based on announcements and PR. I'd love to know why this article was accepted in the first place, the quality of references required to establish notability as per NCORP goes far beyond regurgitated announcements/interviews/quotations. I've tried searching I have been unable to find any references that meet NCORP criteria, topic fails WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 20:31, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I discuss just this kind of thing in WP:SERIESA. The reliable sources are dependent and this article does nothing but discuss the company's existence. FalconK (talk) 10:16, 16 January 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.