Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Embark Trucks

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. I considered a redirect to Peterbilt per L3X1 as an WP:ATD-R but having read the article I am not sure that's appropriate; the subject isn't owned by Peterbilt, just a "formal partner", whatever that means. No prejudice against recreation as a redirect to somewhere. A Train^talk 07:32, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Embark Trucks

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

Fails WP:NCORP, WP:CORPDEPTH, and WP:TOOSOON. The article subject has attracted some coverage, but none of this coverage has been beyond standard announcements and press releases. In addtion, the article subject was founded in 2016 and as such violates parts of TOOSOON. An article creator COI is also likely. SamHolt6 (talk) 16:32, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:45, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:45, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:45, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:45, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Agree with op, fails WP:NCORP and GNG. -- HighKing⁺⁺15:59, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:21, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- Techcrunch and the company's website? Fails WP:RS. Rhadow (talk) 19:11, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- Please review additional edits made to address WP:NCORP and WP:CORPDEPTH based on recent media coverage. Thanks. Jonnyvsrobots (talk) 18:14, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Gimme a break. Recent media coverage (USA Today) (2017) says, "a new self-driving truck startup that launched Friday". Waaay TOOSOON. Rhadow (talk) 18:40, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Adding in the words "(USA Today)" still isn't providing us with a link. Searching for an article in USA Today, I came across this article - which may or may not be the one you are referring to - but since this article relates almost exclusively on quotations and information provided by the company, it is not "intellectually independent" as it contains zero independent opinion and/or analysis, therefore fails WP:CORPDEPTH and/or WP:ORGIND. -- HighKing⁺⁺21:22, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Not sure which article you're referring to without a link. Company was founded in 2016 per multiple sources including Crunchbase, has significant coverage in independent, reliable sources per citations over the past year. WP:TOOSOON applies if a topic is arguably relevant but cannot yet meet notability criteria, which is not the case here. Jonnyvsrobots (talk) 18:54, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It's a common misconception that if coverage exists in "independent, reliable sources" then these references can be used to demonstrate notability. This is not the case. The rest of the test for references that meet the criteria for establishing notability is that the article is "intellectually independent". Publication of articles derived almost entirely from company produced information (e.g. company announcements, press releases, interviews, etc) fail WP:CORPDEPTH and/or WP:ORGIND. Similarly, listings such as those published by Crunchbase fail the criteria since anybody can create a profile and also fails WP:ORGIND. -- HighKing⁺⁺17:27, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Pete for the time being as an ATD. L3X1 (distænt write) 04:16, 10 November 2017 (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.