Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/NewtonX

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 redirect to Newton-X. MBisanz ^talk 13:33, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

NewtonX[edit]

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

Non-notable tech company startup. Fails WP:NCORP due to a lack of in-depth, significant sources that mention the company itself as opposed to covering the field of AI and tech startups. Article fails WP:CORPDEPTH for the same reason, with what limited coverage the start-up being focused around interviews. Also a likely WP:GNG and WP:TOOSOON failure given that the company was founded in 2016. It is also important to note that the company does not inherit notability from it's founders, which themselves are likely non-notable. SamHolt6 (talk) 21:05, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 22:11, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 22:11, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The company has major investors, huge clients, and notable founders. Editing to make this clearer. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ElainaNX (talk • contribs) 14:13, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Restore redirect to Newton-X. I created this redirect after deleting the first appearance of this page as A7 because it's a plausible search term. The company discussed here is not notable as the nominator has pointed out despite the newly added "sources" one of which dates before the company was founded and the other merely mentions it once without context. I found no more coverage than that (except some "says John Doe, CEO of NewtonX" mentions). Regards So Why 06:57, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Adheres to WP:COMPANY due to validity of sources concerning founders and company (Wired, VentureBeat, TNW, Harvard Business School - all of which = multiple and reliable sources WP:SOURCE and WP:RS). — Preceding unsigned comment added by ElainaNX (talk • contribs) 22:37, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note that ElainaNX has been blocked for sock puppetry per Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/ElainaNX.--SamHolt6 (talk) 06:21, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:08, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect, some new refs were added but notability didn't change. Szzuk (talk) 07:31, 12 April 2018 (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.