Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Character.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 keep. Liz Read! Talk! 23:51, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

Character.ai

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

Fails WP:ORG and WP:PROMOTION, possible WP:COI. Article reads excessively promotional and subject fails to meet criteria for notability as a company, and likely does not meet WP:GNG at all. Axiomofyourchoosing (talk) 15:12, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 15:26, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep - The sources in the article meet WP:THREE, so it meets WP:GNG and WP:ORGCRIT just by what's in the article. Concerns of promotional tone are solved via editing and are not a reason for deletion. Similarly, an unsubstantiated claim of a "possible COI" is not a reason to delete an article, especially when that statement is made by a brand new account whose only edits have been to PROD and AfD this article. AfD is not a substitute for WP:COIN. It's certainly not a perfect article by any means, but the issues with the article can be solved via editing, as notability is not one of the problems. - Aoidh (talk) 15:53, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 05:05, 21 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete or Draftify - I'm not convinced that the subject meets WP:NCORP, possibly a case of WP:TOOSOON. &mdash;HackerKnownAs (talk) 04:44, 21 November 2022 (UTC)
 * It meets WP:NCORP in that "it has been the subject of significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject" which is what WP:NCORP specifically looks for. "I'm not convinced" is not a rationale for deletion, how does it fail to meet that criteria? - Aoidh (talk) 10:32, 21 November 2022 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.


 * Keep - Sources in the article already make it meet WP:GNG. Importantly, coverage is significant and not trivial. I have also found significant coverage in numerous other reliable sources as well. As mentioned by Aoidh, the other issues can be fixed and are not a valid rationale for deletion. ProofRobust  22:42, 21 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete There are not 3 sources in the article - #2 is a reprint of #1 and they should not both be listed. So there are 2 sources and only one is a description of the company. I don't find any other 3rd party sources. The article was created by a WP:SPA which makes me wonder about COI. The company is a start-up; if it makes it then there will be enough for notability, but not yet. Lamona (talk) 01:10, 24 November 2022 (UTC)
 * The account who created this article has about 4 times as many edits as you do, on a wide variety of topics, mostly food and video game related going back to 2016. The article was not created by an SPA, and the only evidence of a COI is an unsubstantiated claim by a suspicious new account created specifically to nominate this article for deletion. As for the number of sources, here is a third source in Chinese; the article meets WP:GNG. Notability is there, the author is not a SPA, and the claim that there is a COI has zero evidence; there is no cause to delete the article. - Aoidh (talk) 02:42, 24 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Aoidh I apologize for mis-reading the edits as SPA - I did not read far enough. However, I still see this as an unproven startup, the articles are mainly about it as a startup, and it is currently in beta. Like SWinxy I think it is likely that there will not be sustained coverage. Unlike SWinxy, I consider that to be WP:TOOSOON. If this software does endure, an article can be done at a later time. Lamona (talk) 16:38, 28 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Being an "unproven startup" is not something that affects notability ("unproven" seems subjective). In fact WP:NCORP gives "a tech start-up in a major U.S. metropolitan area" as an example of something that would have more than one or two sources showing notability, and since that's all it says regarding startups I think it's fair to say there is no criteria that says startups are not notable just because they are startups. The article's subject meets WP:ORGCRIT and WP:GNG, the two relevant criteria for this article's subject. Details like it being a startup do not play a factor in whether the article's subject is notable, the only relevant question is "does it meet the relevant notability guidelines" and the answer to that question is "yes". There is no reason supported by Wikipedia policies and guidelines to delete this article. - Aoidh (talk) 20:06, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 04:59, 28 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep. Alongside the Insider and Washington Post articles on the chatbot, there is also an Ars Technica and an article from a place I've never heard of. These demonstrate GNG, though I don't think there will be sustained coverage. SWinxy (talk) 02:33, 28 November 2022 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.


 * Keep. Has coverage and meets GNG. 0x Deadbeef →∞ (talk to me) 09:46, 29 November 2022 (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.