Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Daedalean


 * 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. Stifle (talk) 12:27, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

Daedalean

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

NCORP requires more than "coverage" of funding rounds, partnerships, new offices, new executives, joint project, etc. These are all regurgitated PR and announcements. The "AI Prize" is not remotely prestigious enough to establish notability. None of the references contain in-depth "Independent Content" and I'm unable to locate anything that does.  HighKing++ 12:25, 7 November 2022 (UTC) Let's take a look at wp:ncorp rule which helps us to estimate which sources are good for evaluating company's notability. Here I copy the essence of the rule: Individual sources must be evaluated separately and independently of each other and meet the four criteria below to determine if a source qualifies towards establishing notability. Contain significant coverage addressing the subject of the article directly and in depth. Be completely independent of the article subject. Meet the standard for being a reliable source. Be a secondary source; primary and tertiary sources do not count towards establishing notability. An individual source must meet all of these criteria to be counted towards establishing notability; each source needs to be significant, independent, reliable, and secondary. In addition, there must also be multiple such sources to establish notability.
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Aviation,  and Switzerland.  HighKing++ 12:25, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment The article is a little refbombed but I've looked at every reference and there's nothing that meets NCORP criteria. It would be helpful to keep the discussion focussed on references with emphasis on whether *specific* references meet NCORP criteria or not.  HighKing++ 12:27, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete the articles talking about them are about the search for autonomous flight, self flying airplanes. That would be a better target for a redirect, but I don't see that it exists. Delete for lack of sources about the company. Oaktree b (talk) 16:27, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
 * actually it's both the company and the research organization. sources are enough but don't expect forbes or bloomberg to appear here. Tristana Wors (talk) 07:48, 10 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep there is coverage more than founding rounds, joint projects, etc.
 * here I list four sources, which go "beyond brief mentions and routine announcements, and makes it possible to write more than a very brief, incomplete stub about the organization".
 * https://www.futureflight.aero/news-brief/2022-09-29/daedalean-publishes-roadmap-autonomous-flights-2028
 * https://www.aerospacetechreview.com/the-future-of-flight-will-be-built-on-safety/
 * https://www.aviationtoday.com/2022/08/10/former-intel-engineer-daedalean-launch-operations-for-autonomous-avionics/
 * https://www.aviationtoday.com/2019/08/07/daedalean-developing-neural-network-future-air-taxi-avionics/ Tristana Wors (talk) 08:41, 10 November 2022 (UTC) Sock strike. HighKing++ 13:58, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment You appear to be ignoring WP:ORGIND and the requirement for "Independent Content" which in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. How can you say that an article based entirely from a company announcement or other PR or quotes or interviews meets NCORP when the journalist is merely regurgitating the information that was provided? Point out where in those articles there is a paragraph that meets both ORGIND and CORPDEPTH.  HighKing++ 11:23, 10 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I cannot say that they (articles) are dependent or the journalists were merely regurgitating the information, or using PR announcements. There are many pdf articles with scientific research conducted by and in collaboration with company, so I think we shouldn't say that the website of the organization is the only source for the journalists. Tristana Wors (talk) 15:27, 10 November 2022 (UTC)
 * so, if to talk from the opposite: what the dependent content is:
 * press releases, press kits, or similar public relations materials
 * any material that is substantially based on such press releases even if published by independent sources (churnalism),
 * advertising and marketing materials by, about, or on behalf of the organization,
 * including pieces like "case studies" or "success stories" by Chambers of Commerce, business incubators, consulting firms, etc.
 * any paid or sponsored articles, posts, and other publications,
 * including pieces by non-staff "contributors" to Forbes, Huffington Post, Entrepreneur.com, Inc.com, TechCrunch, Medium.com, and other publications that accept public contributions and that do not provide meaningful editorial oversight of the submitted content,
 * self-published materials, including vanity press,
 * patents, whether pending or granted,
 * any material written or published, including websites, by the organization, its members, or sources closely associated with it, directly or indirectly,
 * other works in which the company, corporation, organization, or group talks about itself—whether published by itself, or re-printed by other people (for example, self-submitted biographies to Who's Who).
 * All the sources I provided above are not press releases, churnalism, paid or sponsored, self-published, patent, any non-staff contributors, etc. Tristana Wors (talk) 15:33, 10 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Response Those references are all PR. If you think otherwise, simply point out any in-depth "Independent Content" in the references. Here's my take on them:
 * This Aerospafce TechReview article is an article about automation in flying aircraft used for war and some quotes have been provided by various companies including the topic company. The article is not about the topic company, does not contain any in-depth information *about* the company and has no "Independent Content" about the company, at all. Fails both ORGIND and CORPDEPTH. So the question to you is, please point out any in-depth Independent Content in this reference.
 * This Aviation Today" article is a copy of a Press Release. [https://www.airframer.com/news_story.html?release=84567 Here's an article published 6 days previously which is exactly the same - and it is marked as a Press Release. Fails ORGIND.
 * is type of company profile piece which is a form of camouflaged PR (sometimes referred to as a "puff profile"). It relies *entirely* on information provided by the company. A careful read makes it clear and there is nothing here that is "Independent Content". This article was published on Aug 7 2019 and we can find extremely similar articles in the same style (more puff profiles) in other publications such as Uniting Aviation from May 2019, Vertical from July 20 2019 and AIN online from July 29 2019, all containing the same information with quotes from the CEO, descriptions of the company objectives, upbeat projections, work with EASA and future projections. Fails ORGIND.
 * Each reference must meet all of NCORP criteria including CORPDEPTH and ORGIND together. Once you remove the information provided by the company, there's not enough "Independent Content" left to qualify for CORPDEPTH.  HighKing++ 19:07, 10 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Those sources all appear to be industry trade publications; these are usually connected to the source or have relationships within the industry. We'd need coverage from more mainstream publications, for the average Joe not in the industry. Oaktree b (talk) 15:35, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗  plicit  12:53, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Mild keep per comments above both delete and keep, and per GNG and NCORP — some minimum sources are indeed available and not all of them aren't reliable (to my view). Just want to drop here this source which provides some critics, opinion, overview and analysis of the page's subject. 多少 战场 龙 (talk) 09:25, 11 November 2022 (UTC)
 * The question isn't whether the sources are reliable but whether they meet NCORP. I've looked at the reference you provided and it relies *entirely* on an interview with the CEO. Which parts of the reference do you think meets "Independent Content" as per ORGIND?  HighKing++ 18:22, 11 November 2022 (UTC)
 * <p class="xfd_relist" style="margin:0 0 0 -1em;border-top: 1px solid #AAA; border-bottom: 1px solid #AAA; padding: 0px 2em;"> Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.


 * Delete Coverage fails to rise above the puff-piece level. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 20:33, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete Promotional article by a sockpuppet. MrsSnoozyTurtle 06:35, 24 November 2022 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. <b style="color:red">Please do not modify it.</b> 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.