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. ✗plicit 04:19, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Abacus.AI[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)

Doesn't meet WP:CORP, no substantive content from independent reliable sources about the company itself. Sources are all basically press releases/announcements about funding or surface-level commentary about machine learning/AI. Scientific citations all come from people from the organization itself. Citing (talk) 14:23, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Citing (talk) 14:23, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:37, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but modify. The sources in the article are reliable, but the article has an overly promotional tone. Salsakesh (talk) 22:00, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There's nothing to be written from the sources. As noted below, it's only routine coverage of funding rounds. Every single non-primary source is some variety of "[Company] has raised $X million." Citing (talk) 14:00, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete When you ignore the primary source citations to published papers (which don't count toward establishing notability) there are only a handful of tech industry sources that mainly focus on the funding rounds raised. This is pretty routine coverage and isn't really significant enough to establish notability compared to the thousands of startups that get created and die or get acquired every year. Steven Walling • talk 01:35, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:18, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Per Steven's source analysis. My own research only turned up this ZDNet article as significant coverage, but it isn't enough to meet WP:GNG on its own. ThadeusOfNazereth(he/him)^{Talk to Me!} 01:09, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:32, 1 September 2023 (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.