Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Neuralink

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. There is no consensus to delete, therefore default keep. A merge is an option, as always. Tone 08:24, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Neuralink

[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)

Article eers on the side of irrelevant. All source either heavily focus on Musk over the company, and the only noise the company made was when it was reported. No further sources or available coverage detailing anything further detailing the company's plans or progress. ⠀^TOMÁSTOMÁS_TOMÁS⠀TALK⠀ 22:29, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

In the absence of sustained coverage since March 2017, I think it would be fine to merge into Elon Musk, the subject with whom this topic is best associated. Honestly, I don't think anyone would have objected if you would have tried that before coming to AfD. czar 22:33, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/Redirect per User:Czar. --John M Wolfson (talk) 22:58, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:39, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:39, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This article is well-written, neutral, properly sourced and this company is frequently mentioned in articles concerning Elon Musk's companies. While being a new company still hiring employees, Musk has recently made a statement in an interview that Neuralink would present some of their latest developments in the coming months, so I would argue that a deletion of the article for the reasons presented here would be premature. There is also plenty of room for expansion based on the extensive article Musk tasked Tim Urban to do about the company including interviews with the founding members of the company. AntonSamuel (talk) 15:11, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:31, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There is much more recent coverage than March 2017, and a lot of it [1][2][3][4][5][6]. I'm not following the argument that sources talk a lot about Musk. Yes, notability of a company is not inherited from its founder, but neither is it disinherited by him. The sources are talking about what Musk has to say about the company, not about Musk himself. SpinningSpark 13:59, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It's pretty straightforward that the sources currently in the article talk about and through Musk. Can say the same of the articles you just listed, though I wouldn't give much credence to packtpub.com, interestingengineering.com, teslarati.com anyway, as they're not reliable sources. If the company is covered mainly for its relation through Musk and there is very little to say about the company's operations apart from Musk's involvement in it, the usual (and uncontroversial) means of handling the info is summary style expansion within a section of the parent, as is currently at Elon_Musk#Neuralink. czar 17:02, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This was my train of thought as well. Since most of the coverage is centered around Musk rather than the company independently, it would be better suited as a merge to his main article. There's simply not enough coverage relating to the company itself. ⠀^TOMÁSTOMÁS_TOMÁS⠀TALK⠀ 15:32, 9 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

just a comment. This is a medical device company, which is different from Musk's other companies. I have been keeping a close eye on it since it was created, keeping out the typical Musk WP:CRYSTALBALL hype. We do not include speculative, hyping content about anything medical in Wikipedia. I see little chance of this AfD succeeding given Musk's fanbase in Wikipedia. I would not oppose a merge to Musk and had suggested it in spring 2017, but it didn't succeed (see discussions here and here (yes, it happened in two places). This article is not going to expand much until the company actually does some things; business content can be sourced per RS but anything medical will need to be sourced per WP:MEDRS. I imagine that this article will be short for a long time, as medical stuff takes a long time. Jytdog (talk) 14:59, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Of course this type of research takes a long time, but it shouldn't be kept because it has a "chance" to expand when there isn't sufficient coverage to begin with. ⠀^TOMÁSTOMÁS_TOMÁS⠀TALK⠀ 15:36, 9 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I've been mulling this one over for a few days but I'm decided against a merge. I don't know whether Jytdog has me in mind when referring to "keeping out the typical Musk WP:CRYSTALBALL hype" and "Musk's fanbase in Wikipedia" but it should be noted that despite a strong personal dislike of Musk, I stand by my position in a lengthy argument I had with Jytdog in April 2017, as the commentary about the timeframes Musk claims (which included criticism) fall under CRYSTALBALL's "It is appropriate to report discussion and arguments about the prospects for success of future proposals and projects or whether some development will occur, if discussion is properly referenced". This content would make the article a bit more substantial if included. SpinningSpark also notes the presence of sources around Neuralink which are sufficient for GNG (even discounting the examples of theirs which are unreliable). — Bilorv_(c)(talk) 19:09, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A stub at the moment due to the lack of a product but will be expanded once they release one. Λυδ α cιτγ 10:10, 9 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and Delete. References have no detail on the company other than rumour and therefore fails WP:CORPDEPTH. Other articles rely on hearsay, rumour, gossip, tweets and quotations from connected people. Topic fails GNG and WP:NCORP. I would like any Keep !voters to provide links to specific articles they believe meet WP:NCORP guidelines as I'm having trouble locating any. HighKing⁺⁺ 14:54, 9 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Clearly satisfies WP:GNG. I understand the nomination is based on the assumption that after the launch, there were "No further sources or available coverage detailing anything further detailing [sic] the company's plans or progress", but that is simply wrong - I just expanded the article based on the in-depth Gizmodo report from 2018. PS: While I appreciate the effort to keep speculative medical claims out of the article, let's not go overboard with MEDRS, and pay attention to Wikipedia:Biomedical_information#What_is_not_biomedical_information?. Regards, HaeB (talk) 04:06, 11 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the additions! Λυδ α cιτγ 04:47, 11 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Response Having read the Gizmodo report, if fails WP:ORGIND since all of the information in the article is based on company announcements except possible for the statement But Neuralink is likely conducting animal research which is the only original "research" in the entire article. Please note from WP:ORGIND - Independent content, in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. HighKing⁺⁺ 12:59, 12 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.