Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Adaptive A.I. Inc.


 * 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, per DGG and Phil Bridger. Not notable (yet). Keeper  |   76   |   Disclaimer  20:44, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Adaptive A.I. Inc.

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

could fail WP:corp; in addition, please note notability is not inherited. Oo7565 (talk) 05:53, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep . "Could fail" is not a reason for deletion - articles should only be nominated if the nominator, after doing some basic research, thinks that they "do fail" inclusion criteria. Also there is nothing about this article that gives any indication that inherited notability is claimed. Therefore no valid reason has been stated for deletion. Phil Bridger (talk) 22:13, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete currently has 17 staff members, "who in a relatively short time have made significant headway" and "The current project of Adaptive A.I. (called Project Aigo) is planned to be completed by January 2009." They hope to become notable. The references are promotional interviews at a few futurist websites. I'm not sure why the nom. mentioned "inherited" because their founder is not notable either--he tried to write an article on himself back in 2005, but it was speedily deleted.  DGG (talk) 00:55, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
 * weak Keep. http://www.theatlasphere.com/columns/050601-zader-peter-voss-interview.php demonstrates notability to an extent.  The fact that it is a promotional interview doesn't preclude its use to satisfy WP:N.  It is OK as long as the interview and publication cannot be considered a paid advertisement, or otherwise dependent on the subject.  However, is this one interview sufficient?  What is the theatlasphere?  It claims to be big, but it is unclear that it is reputable.  Note that the interview of June 1 2005 has received zero ratings to date.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:06, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment. I am switching to neutral on this one, because DGG has addressed my concern by providing an acceptable rationale for deletion, which the nominator failed to do. Phil Bridger (talk) 13:42, 2 May 2008 (UTC)


 * 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.