Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Seek 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. Vanamonde (Talk) 02:49, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Seek 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)

While a $7.5M pre-seed and seed round is certainly impressive (as is being listed in Sequoia's market map), it is remarkably hard to find WP:SIGCOV for a WP:NCORP pass, or any indication of what this company does beyond "something involving GPT-3". There is no indication of notability; most of the text is ad copy, and most of the references are self-published (PR NewsWire, for example, is literally a press release from the company, and two of them are literally from the company's own website). The Forbes reference is from a contributor piece (cf. WP:FORBESCON), Pitchbook is an auto-generated database page, and the others (Unite and Datanami) are routine coverage. jp×g 01:00, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Business, Companies, Products, Technology, and Computing. jp×g 01:00, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Internet and Software. jp×g 01:01, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: the creator of this article has made fourteen edits, one of which was to create this entire page from scratch in a single diff, so I suspect it was the result of WP:UPE. jp×g 01:11, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nothing of WP:CORPDEPTH standard. Clearly fails WP:NCORP. 2A01:E0A:2C9:A5E0:74A0:FDAF:92DA:F0F5 (talk) 02:08, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There's coverage in Tech Crunch (iffy source), and Business Insider (paywalled), that seem ok-ish. The funding certainly gets mention in many tech sources, I think this might have a chance here. I'll keep looking. Oaktree b (talk) 02:53, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete it's all PR stuff. Almost feels like it's TOOSOON, the company is barely 2 years old.Oaktree b (talk) 02:56, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no significant independent coverage, most of it is press releases and routine reporting on raised capital. Likely a case of TOOSOON. Mooonswimmer 23:04, 20 January 2023 (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.