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. Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 14:35, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Alethea AI (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

AI NFT company. See WP:NCRYPTO - the sourcing in this article is to deprecated media, YouTube etc. The company fails WP:NCORP. "When establishing the notability of cryptocurrencies and other blockchain-related projects, the consensus is that crypto-centric news organizations—such as Coindesk or Bitcoin Magazine—generally cannot be used, as they do not provide coverage that can be considered "independent" from their subject for the purposes of WP:ORGCRITE. The notability of such projects must therefore be established on the basis of other sources, such as mainstream reliable news sources." Alexandermcnabb (talk) 10:27, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Technology and Computing. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 10:27, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:NCORP. —HackerKnownAs (talk) 13:08, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete -- seems to be not notable and without any reliable sources --Filmmaniac Tomik (talk) 13:40, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Seems to be legit for wikipedia. However I'm not sure. --Filmmaniac Tomik (talk) 15:10, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Blocked sock. MER-C 09:18, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete more crypto fluff. Sources are blogs/non-RS websites, or passing mentions. Oaktree b (talk) 15:18, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - The relevant guideline is WP:ORGCRIT. Disregarding the routine funding annoucenemtns, press releases, and cryptoblogs, there are in-depth references in VentureBeat, Fast Company, Bloomberg, and a few others. While it likely is receiving press because of Mark Cuban, it is still receiving press which meets ORGCRIT. --CNMall41 (talk) 04:41, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - This article was created after some research on references and it is not based on small time references only. Real coverage is present which already satisfies Wikipedia criteria of notability. --Cisugeb (talk) 14:36, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per WP:HEY. Easily passes WP:ORGCRIT/WP:SIGCOV with the significant coverage from the sources currently cited in the article. David Gerard has done an excellent job of removing all of the Wikipedia:Citation overkill which existed at the time of nomination and leaving the quality references in the article.4meter4 (talk) 13:10, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:31, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cryptocurrency-related deletion discussions. Skynxnex (talk) 18:32, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Reviewed the article after clean up; Bloomberg is pay-walled, so I can't tell how useful it is. The other two sites I'm not familiar with, they seem ok? Oaktree b (talk) 19:29, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have access to Bloomberg and the piece is good - it's about 'Mark Cuban-Backed Firm Alethea' sure enough. That both the BB and Fast Company article are about 'Mark Cuban-Backed Firm Alethea' is a little company statementy, but the content is pretty routine - Alethea "has already had some commercial success, selling one intelligent NFT, or iNFT, for $478,000 via Sotheby’s in June." and "has closed a $16 million strategic private and restricted token sale where the lead purchasers were Metapurse". So these are funding/intent announcements of a very early stage company in a very speculative field. Fast Company cites exactly the same "One of these NFTs, called “Alice,” already sold for $478,000 on Sotheby’s Natively Digital market in June." and "Cuban, along with Metapurse, Crypto.com Capital, Multicoin, Dapper Labs, and others participated in a private sale of crypto tokens in Alethea that generated $16 million." So the two pieces have to be considered tantamount to company statements. Despite the existence of sources, I still have concerns about NCORP standards of notability - in particular WP:SERIESA. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 04:26, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• I found that if you remove the part of the Bloomberg link after the "?" then you can read the entire article. And it isn't good (for the purposes of establishing notability). The article has no "Independent Content" (as per ORGIND) in the form of original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. It reports that it sold one NFT via Sotheby's (and shows a tweet from Sotheby's), summarises their funding (nothing original there), and then a bunch of quotes from company execs and an upbeat view of NFTs in general. It also fails CORPDEPTH as there is no in-depth information on the company here, just summarising other news. HighKing⁺⁺ 12:14, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete WP:NCORP requires multiple sources (at least two) of deep or significant coverage with in-depth information *on the company* and (this bit is important!) containing "Independent Content". "Independent content", 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. None of the references in the article meet the criteria and I have been unable to find any references that meet NCORP criteria. The Bloomberg piece summarises existing news and produces quotes from company execs, fails ORGIND and CORPDEPTH. The Korea IT Times is specifically about the work produced by Robert Alice in collaboration with the topic company and includes general information on how an iNFT can be made seem "intelligent" through the use of GPT-3. It has no in-depth information about the company which is what is required seeing as this topic is the company, not the artwork, fails both ORGIND and CORPDEPTH. The FastCompany article also relies on information provided by the company and the journalist describes how "Noah's Ark" site imbues an NFT with a "soul". It does not provide any in-depth nor significant "Independent Content" about the company, fails ORGIND and CORPDEPTH. Finally, the TechInAsia article is very like the Bloomberg article (and only 2 days apart) in that it mentions the Sotheby's sale, summarises the company funding includes a quote from the company exec. It also has no in-depth significant "Independent Content", fails CORPDEPTH and ORDING. Topic fails WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 12:14, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - It's not enough to cite sources, we need to use those sources to explain to readers why this topic is encyclopedically significant. The point is not to prove that this project exists in the vaguest possible terms, our goal is to write a neutral encyclopedia article about it. Right now, the article merely regurgitates a bunch of pathetically generic cryptocurrency buzzwords. It is not clear what this company actually does, nor why anyone should care. Notability cannot even be evaluated until these sources are properly summarized. Grayfell (talk) 21:54, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:26, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Notability not indicated by the sourcing per HighKing. We need to exercise extreme caution with crypto-related enterprises, and the tone and scope of the provided articles do not come close to convincing me. Ovinus (talk) 02:12, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Wikipedia:Notability (cryptocurrencies) and WP:SIGCOV. If, outside of articles in the insular trade websites and insider newsletters, there's been a single news article about a crypto thing, then it's not notable. Bearian (talk) 19:17, 1 November 2022 (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.