Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Perplexity.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. ✗plicit 00:19, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Perplexity.ai

Perplexity.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)

Fails

Draftified multiple times; declined multiple times at AfC; tags added and removed; the history of this article is somewhat complex.

• Note: This discussion has been included in the
  Stuartyeates (talk) 09:32, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:40, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:40, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:45, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I believe there are enough significant, independent, and reliable sources to claim
  WP:NCORP (e.g. [1][2][3][4][5]). It's not a great article, but it's not even bad enough for me to want to say that it can't be worked on in the main space (i.e. to draftify). PopoDameron ⁠talk 18:05, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Comment:

1. TechCrunch is not suitable for notability purposes, see Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_246#Is_TechCrunch_a_reliable_source?.
2. theregister.com article doesn't actually have in-depth coverage of Perplexity.ai
   , it's all about it's more-notable relations.
3. The Wall Street Journal podcast is so short it's not in-depth (at least according to the 'full transcript').
4. The Yahoo! Finance piece is a non-adversarial interview with the CEO.
5. The www.businesstoday.in source appears to contain multiple unattributed quotes from other articles on the web. This is not a reliable source.

In short, none of this is the reliable independent coverage that we're looking for.

Stuartyeates (talk) 20:08, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply

]

Here's a new article by the NYTimes [6] that I quite liked. Not currently used in the article, but even if you can't approve of any of the current sources, we should be good by

WP:NEXIST. PopoDameron ⁠talk 21:18, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply

]

Sorry, this is paywalled for me.

Stuartyeates (talk) 22:10, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply

]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:34, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per the second and last sources cited by PopoDameron; the others look like churnalism to me, but those two should be enough for this to squeak through
  WP:NCORP. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 00:49, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply
  ]

  Agreed, other than the TechCrunch one, which seemed rather thorough to me. PopoDameron ⁠talk 03:29, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I agree with PopoDameron; seems to meet
  WP:SIGCOV. Marokwitz (talk) 07:51, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep Obviously significant. Chris55 (talk) 21:22, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - There is enough coverage on this one. 00:20, 31 January 2024 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Royal88888 (talk • contribs)
• Keep - The subject of the article is a publicly available part of the current frontier technology developments of artificial intelligence, and as such is of interest to the public, and the article's information about this AI is relevant. I came to this article today (to be here to comment) because I saw something of interest about it 'out in the world' and was curious to learn more from a balanced source; the article did not disappoint.LaEremita (talk) 09:11, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I don't love the sources identified above, but I do think that we have
  ordinary editing can address any extant content issues. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 05:46, 4 February 2024 (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.