Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Squirrel 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 keep‎. Satisfies the GNG, nevertheless, cleanup is needed. Goldsztajn (talk) 03:40, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Squirrel 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)

Unambiguous advertising, notability quite questionable. It was a contested prod a long time ago, so here we are. MediaKyle (talk) 03:46, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Technology, and China. MediaKyle (talk) 03:46, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:16, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's good enough. Many less notable company articles out there. Lfstevens (talk) 05:20, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This is not a good argument against deletion. Toadspike [Talk] 06:48, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep: The MIT Technology Review piece (cited in the article) is good, and I found this "case study" from Stanford Business: [1]. But the article is in terrible shape and needs to be completely rewritten. Total advertisement. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 11:01, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think this is where I land as well – I haven't searched for sources yet, but the MIT Technology Review source is very good indeed. I don't think I have access to this case study but it's probably pretty good as well. The other stuff (press releases and passing mentions or less) don't count towards the GNG. Toadspike [Talk] 13:35, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above – the two sources above might be enough to meet the GNG. Add to this Chinese coverage, which can be found under "松鼠AI"; this includes not-so-flattering pieces like [2]. There are lot of other unreliable sources (in English and Chinese) such as press releases, interviews, promotional junk, and Forbes "contributor" articles [3] (generally unreliable per WP:FORBESCON); these of course do not count towards the GNG. The promotional tone, while bad, is not a reason for deletion in and of itself. Toadspike [Talk] 13:50, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
(Okay, the piece I linked does kinda end on a promotional note? But it starts out very unflattering and uses that part as a clickbait headline. Not sure what to make of it.) Toadspike [Talk] 13:57, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Some coverage in the China Daily [4] and this journal article discussing it [5]. With what's given elsewhere in the comments, probably enough for a keep. Oaktree b (talk) 14:33, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Gscholar has many articles discussing this AI, there's a book chapter that talks about it here [6] Oaktree b (talk) 14:34, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: there are several articles that establish notability as mentioned by others, such as MIT Technology Review, Stanford Business Case Study and China Daily.Darkm777 (talk) 02:17, 20 March 2025 (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.