Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/KidSense.ai

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. Keep arguments not convincing, especially in the face of "what if it becomes a developed product and would be famous" - it clearly isn't a famous developed product then, now is it? ♠PMC♠ (talk) 10:27, 10 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

KidSense.ai

[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)

Product is new and not (yet) notable. There is a single reliable source which discusses this product in significance. Everything else fails one or more elements of being an independent reliable secondary source (mostly through press releases or Churnalism from said PR). Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 02:19, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. —AE (talk • contributions) 03:41, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. —AE (talk • contributions) 03:41, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. —AE (talk • contributions) 03:41, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: As creator, the techcrunch article establishes Notability, as it is dedicated and detailed, also great technology review website like techcrunch covers those topics that are worthy enough. As far as other sources are concerned, i will encourage my senior writer fellows to edit out un-encyclopedic data. Thankyou Sangemarwa (talk) 16:09, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Sangemarwa, I do not want to vote for delete just yet (although I am inclined towards it). For clarification, could you please explain what do you mean by "I will encourage my senior writer fellows to edit ......"? Are you the owner/shareholder of the company or the creator of this product? If so, please refer to WP:COI, WP:PROMO and WP:DCOI -Jay (talk) 18:05, 29 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Jay, no sir, I am not the owner of this, nor I am related to it, I came across it while researching on Speech recognition. I said the edit thing because I thought if the community thinks it is not correctly written, they may reword it appropriately. :) thanks. Sangemarwa (talk) 09:50, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - What if we move this to a draft and give it another try? it might give it a chance to improve. B. N .D | ✉ 09:55, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Move to draft (in my opinion) is equivalent to delete the article, and then ask the "page creator" or anybody interested to work on their user draft space. Lets wait for others opinion. In the meantime, I am still considering whether to vote for "delete" or "keep". The article needs a lot of improvement if we were to vote "keep". The notability is still a question mark. --Jay (talk) 10:57, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kpg jhp jm 02:12, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I this this article is legit. I dont see major problems with it. I was searching for kids speech recognition and this page helped me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by NimaKev2017 (talk • contribs) 16:31, 4 October 2018 (UTC) — NimaKev2017 (talk · contribs) has only contributed to the article(s) under discussion for deletion and this XFD page. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 03:02, 6 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

NimaKev2017, as highlighted by Barkeep49, not only youre a new user - joining Wiki to do minor edit on the article, I am a bit skeptical about your comment. We are not talking about legit or not, we are talking about notable as per Wiki Policy. Please read WP:GNG --Jay (talk) 02:45, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - There is no significant coverage regarding this product. It is relatively too new in the market and clearly fails WP:GNG --Jay (talk) 02:44, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

comment That is true. But what if it becomes a developed product and would be famous.... some one else would clearly create this article. I mean it would just be cruel to take the oppurtunity away from the user who had made it now. B. N .D | ✉ 10:04, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If this becomes a developed product and is famous we'll have a Wikipedia article about it. It would not surprise me if in six months to two years if there is enough sourcing out there for a page. Just because it's deleted now doesn't mean it can't ever have a Wikipedia article. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:07, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not notable. Doesn't meet WP:GNG or WP:CORP, particularly WP:CORPDEPTH. Cited TechCrunch coverage is not independent, since it covers the company's participation in TechCrunch's Disrupt conference. This company can have an article when it becomes notable in the future, but it doesn't meet the requirements right now. — Newslinger talk 04:17, 8 October 2018 (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.