Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Clarifai


 * 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.  Sandstein  20:39, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

Clarifai

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Reference are almost entirely from its own website and press releases & minor notices about funding. The reasonable conclusion is that there is nothing better,and that the firm is not yet notable.  DGG ( talk ) 19:11, 28 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete Cannot find any substantive coverage in reliable secondary sources. Vanamonde93 (talk) 19:37, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:55, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:55, 28 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Comment This company is most likely a new start-up, and, should it be successful, would definitely merit a Wikipedia article. Deletion of this article should be held off, if it even happens. Also, sources from places such as Wired should be considered reliable. User:Sheepythemouse
 * That's WP:TOOSOON. --Mr. Magoo (talk) 22:17, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you, I'm new, sorry User:Sheepythemouse —Preceding undated comment added 00:28, 29 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete as none of this suggests better at all for the applicable notability, nothing else better convincing. SwisterTwister   talk  22:16, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 11:07, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 11:07, 30 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete - this is WP:TOOSOON material and there are no reliable third party WP:RS to satisfy notability at this time. Mwenzangu (talk) 02:20, 31 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Comment Hi, I'm the one who created this page. I tried to keep it as factual as possible and I updated the sources. There are many companies that were established in 2013 that are on Wikipedia and not considered "too soon" and are less notable than Clarifai -https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/KulturNav, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buildzoom, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vroom.com, etc. We also modelled our sources after an established page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hootsuite ... I have sources from Techcrunch, Recode, Bloomberg, Wired, Inc., New York Post, and other independent publications. I also have sources from notable academic research organizations like ImageNet. Please let me know which sentences need better supporting sources and I will replace them - there have been dozens of articles written on or mentioning Clarifai. Let me know how I can improve this entry, thanks! Pudgethefish (talk) 18:06, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
 * What you have mentioned is WP:OSE. By looking at this article on its own merit it doesn't meet the required coverage in WP:RS to be notable enough to have it's own page. The references you have mentioned are just the usual announcements about a company getting funding etc. Please check out WP:CORP to understand how notability for corporations works here. Mwenzangu (talk) 00:06, 5 April 2016 (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.