Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wordeep

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. After discounting sockpuppet !votes, there's a general consensus that the corp is not notable. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 14:41, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wordeep[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)

Covert advertising. Fails WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:ORGIND scope_creep^Talk 06:20, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 06:36, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 06:36, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 06:37, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: See the Talk page for the article creator's rationale opposing the article's speedy-deletion. (The CSD itself was removed shortly afterwards by another newly-edited account.) AllyD (talk) 06:37, 25 August 2020 (UTC}

Its cool for a change that a rationale has been left behind. scope_creep^Talk 07:00, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: This page is not unambiguously promotional, because these kinds of innovative technologies are extremely significant to millions of people who write and communicate online. This Wikipedia article and articles about similar technologies (e.g., Grammarly) help individuals gain access to understanding the existing technologies as of today. I agree that editors should join in to elaborate on these topics, for example, add benchmarks and statistics, but still, the entries have a solid justification for existence. . Livingangelusa (talk) 07:44, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Livingangelusa and Stevegrtz, could you point out what you feel are the two strongest sources? Consider looking at wp:N to see how 'strong' is defined. Jlevi (talk) 00:45, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I am not an expert in measuring that, but Jpost and thinkcomputers are pretty known. Livingangelusa (talk) 07:25, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, sources are junk blogs and press releases, fails WP:NCORP. This article is in the Jerusalem Post, but it's clearly a blatant advertisement. Googling the author's name reveals that he's a digital marketer and SEO guy. Spicy (talk) 09:38, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Grammar checker: This sort of cloud software - grammar check / spell check / proof reader is only going to increase in time. There will be more and more demand for this. Whiteguru (talk) 11:27, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Perhaps it need List of these types of articles. scope_creep^Talk 14:34, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Number of strong references shouldn't be the sole metric for existence on Wikipedia. After all, Wikipedia is not a place for only rich entities that spend millions on PR like other grammar correction companies in this field. Innovative solutions and tech-related articles should be publicly available, and we should give a chance for more contributors to add more content to them. Stevegrtz (talk) 16:19, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As a SPA, you probably don't know that the number of valid references are the sole metric per WP:SOURCES and WP:NOTABILITY. There are many many of these types of AI companies, they are very generic, its much like bitcoin/bitcoin miner companies were 2-3 years ago. Your not even first to market, in this particular market, by a long way. So to say that your innovative is complete nonsense. It fails WP:ORGIND and WP:CORPDEPTH by a long way. scope_creep^Talk 23:37, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I don't know what's your profession, but I am dealing with NLP and machine learning for quite a few years, and I can tell you that we see huge breakthroughs every year. Being the first one, means nothing. --Stevegrtz (talk) 15:18, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a software engineer. I did a machine learning course at Columbia a couple of years ago. You must see it from our viewpoint. AI/machine learning companies are under huge investment (thankfully), so on Wikipedia we see dozens of the these types articles every week, and differentiating them is difficult. From an external viewpoint, due to the lens of PR, from what of a particular or better phrase, they seem all the same, and the only thing that differentiates them is how good their references are. scope_creep^Talk 15:34, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Checkuser note: votes by sock puppets struck. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Stevegrtz. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 19:23, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - There is insufficient in-depth coverage in reliable sources to justify an article about this company at this time. I don't even see enough independent coverage to justify mentioning the subject at the grammar checker article. Mz7 (talk) 01:01, 2 September 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.