Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aisera

Aisera

[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)

Appears to fail WP:NCORP. Amigao (talk) 23:12, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Technology, and California. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:59, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I found two sources which could meet WP:ORGCRIT. However, being these are the only two and there is very little coverage outside of those (only five pages on Google News and most are mentions and routine announcements), it is not going to be enough. If a company was seen as worthy of notice by the media, it would have more coverage over the eight years of its existence, especially with AI being heavily covered in the media over the last year. --CNMall41 (talk) 22:42, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:SIGCOV, concurring with CNMall41. If you find more reliable sources, please let us know. Bearian (talk) 02:00, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Doesn't appear sufficiently notable for an article. Most mentions in reliable sources are only covering it in the context of covering the AI boom at large. silviaASH (inquire within) 07:35, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I’ve updated the Aisera article with additional independent, reliable sources to establish notability per WP:NCORP. These include TechCrunch on $50M (2020) and $90M (2022) funding ([1], [2]), Business Insider on its AI solutions ([3]), Forbes on RPA innovation ([4]), VentureBeat on $40M funding (2021) and Microsoft AI integration (2023) ([5], [6]), and IDC MarketScape recognition (2023) ([7]). Additional analyst reports from Forrester (e.g., Wave: Chatbots for IT Operations, Q4 2022, [8]). This coverage spans 2020-2024, showing sustained attention beyond routine mentions, especially in AI and ITSM. Bob Mashouf (talk) 22:13, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - sources are all of the typical unreliable startup hype pieces. Sort of surprised there isn't more coverage by series D but alas. Brandon (talk) 03:04, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the sources are not reliable (per RS requirements) and thus don't meet NCORP. Unicorbia (talk) 12:29, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I respectfully disagree with the recent delete votes labeling the sources as unreliable or "startup hype pieces." The updated Aisera article cites independent, reliable sources per WP:RS, including TechCrunch on $50M (2020) and $90M (2022) funding ([9], [10]), Business Insider on its AI solutions ([11]), Forbes on RPA innovation ([12]), and VentureBeat on $40M funding (2021) and Microsoft AI integration (2023) ([13], [14]). These outlets have editorial oversight and provide significant coverage (WP:SIGCOV)—e.g., funding details, technology analysis, and partnerships—not mere hype. The IDC MarketScape (2023) ([15]) and Forrester Wave (Q4 2022) ([16]) are independent analyst reports, often accepted for notability reports in the AI space, reflecting industry recognition. Spanning 2020-2024, this coverage shows sustained attention beyond routine mentions. Could Brandon and Unicorbia clarify which sources fail WP:RS or lack depth, and why? I believe this meets WP:NCORP for retention. Bob Mashouf (talk) 15:20, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Articles about VC rounds are "routine fundraising events" and fall under WP:CORPTRIV, TechCrunch publishes such article for essentially every raise in the Valley. The Forbes article is WP:FORBESCON. The IDC award is sourced to a press release and has no secondary coverage. Analyst reports are hardly independent given how they are produced and are not regularly used to establish notability on Wikipedia. How many of the companies in the Forrester report have articles? Brandon (talk) 23:01, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - While the article has been updated with additional sources, concerns remain regarding whether they meet the criteria for establishing notability under WP:NCORP. Arguments have been made that the funding announcements from TechCrunch are routine (WP:CORPTRIV), the Forbes article may not meet WP:RS standards (WP:FORBESCON), and the IDC award is sourced to a press release. The reliance on analyst reports for establishing notability is also being questioned. Therefore, despite the company's existence and funding, the current sourcing does not convincingly demonstrate the significant coverage in independent and reliable sources required for a Wikipedia article.Aditi's Voice (talk) 08:14, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ - Thanks for the feedback; I’ll clarify based on the sources. The TechCrunch 2022 article ([17]) details Aisera’s $90M Series D, noting its AI platform “auto-resolves customer service, IT, sales, and operations problems,” not just funding totals, countering WP:CORPTRIV. The Forbes article ([18]) by a staff writer, not WP:FORBESCON, covers Aisera’s Conversational RPA vision. The IDC MarketScape ([19][20]) names Aisera a leader in conversational AI, showing industry recognition. Forrester’s Wave ([21]) ranks Aisera among top vendors—e.g., Drift has a page. VentureBeat ([22], [23]) provides tech and partnership coverage. Spanning 2020-2024, this meets WP:NCORP with independent, significant sources. Can critics specify which lack depth or reliability? Open to edits. Bob Mashouf (talk) 09:00, 2 April 2025 (UTC) - striked double vote - Hmr (talk) 17:25, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Forbes article is overtly authored by Tom Taulli, a "former contributor" and has the Forbes contributor disclaimer at the top of the article. At this point I have to ask, are you affiliated with Aisera? Brandon (talk) 15:50, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]