Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Applied Intuition

< Wikipedia:Articles for deletion
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. Consensus among views based on P&G and depth of sources was clearly on the Delete side, while some of the Keeps offered little in the way of source assessment. Kudos to Cal-batman for disclosing their COI. Owen× ☎ 18:08, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Applied Intuition

edit

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

Applied Intuition (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)

Nothing to show how the subject company is notable. Plenty of WP:CORPTRIV and a few bits of PR fluff, but nothing WP:SUBSTANTIAL as far as I can see - RichT|C|E-Mail 00:05, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep: The routine coverage standard is usually used to dismiss articles from PR firms that have close financial ties to the companies they report about. Reuters is not a PR firm, and they don't report about every fundraising event from every startup. The nominator has the implication backwards: routine coverage can come in the form of fundraising news, but not all fundraising news is routine coverage.
And independent of all this, This case study that already appears in the article can clearly be used to establish notability. I would need to see something more than a bare assertion that the sources in the article constitute "trivial reporting" in order to change my !vote. HyperAccelerated (talk) 02:40, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep - I can't agree with assertions that every source is valuations and funding rounds; in fact most are not. After looking over the list of references it seems to me that about two-thirds of sources cover substantial business activities rather than financial reporting. For example: Harvard Business School case study on the company's business model, Bloomberg's analysis of autonomous vehicle simulation technology and industry challenges, coverage of strategic partnerships with major automakers like Isuzu, Axios coverage of military AI products, Breaking Defense analysis of acquisitions, and a recent CNBC piece discussing the company's AI technology and dual-use applications. These sources provide exactly the type of in-depth critical analysis and commentary from major newspapers, trusted academic institutions, and high-quality mainstream websites that establish notability. I think this article definitely should be kept. Soxfanruthian (talk) 01:08, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
LLM text collapsed
  • Strong Keep - Disclosure: I am an employee of Applied Intuition and have consistently disclosed this affiliation in all my edits to this article and on my user page.

The nominator's WP:CORPTRIV argument fundamentally mischaracterizes the available sources and fails to recognize substantial coverage that clearly establishes notability under WP:CORP. The claim that all coverage consists of "routine business reporting" ignores multiple sources providing detailed analysis of the company's technology, strategic significance, and industry impact.

Academic recognition establishes clear notability: Harvard Business School published a comprehensive case study on Applied Intuition (ref #5). Academic institutions do not create detailed business case studies for companies lacking significant industry impact or innovative business models. This represents exactly the type of substantial, analytical coverage that WP:CORP requires and directly contradicts claims of trivial coverage.

Technology-focused coverage beyond financial reporting: Multiple sources provide substantial analysis of business operations and technological significance:

  • Bloomberg's 2018 detailed analysis of autonomous vehicle simulation challenges and the company's role in addressing industry-wide testing limitations (ref #12)
  • VentureBeat's comprehensive coverage of off-road autonomy technology launch with technical specifications and market analysis (ref #2)
  • Specialized trade publication coverage in ADAS & Autonomous Vehicle International focusing on machine learning data operations and technical capabilities (ref #26)
  • Recent substantial coverage of the June 2025 OpenAI strategic partnership, including detailed analysis from Bloomberg examining the technological implications and industry significance of integrating large language models into vehicle intelligence platforms (ref #9)

Strategic industry partnerships demonstrate operational significance: Coverage of partnerships with major automakers provides substantial analysis of business activities that clearly exceed routine reporting:

  • Nikkei Asia's detailed coverage of Isuzu partnership for Level 4 self-driving trucks (ref #23)
  • Automotive News Europe's analysis of TRATON partnership for software-defined trucks (ref #24)
  • Specialized German automotive publication coverage of Audi partnership following Porsche collaboration (ref #22)

Defense sector recognition for national security applications: Recent coverage demonstrates expansion into critical national security applications:

  • Axios provides substantial analysis of military AI products and strategic significance (ref #19)
  • Bloomberg recognizes the company among "10 Defense Tech Startups to Watch in 2025" based on technological capabilities (ref #17)
  • Breaking Defense covers EpiSci acquisition with detailed analysis of AI dogfighting capabilities and military applications (ref #29)

Sustained coverage across multiple years and topics: The reference list spans 2018-2025 with coverage from major publications focusing on technology developments, strategic partnerships, acquisitions, and industry recognition—not just funding announcements. This sustained attention across multiple business cycles and topics demonstrates the type of ongoing coverage that WP:CORP requires.

Financial coverage as evidence of significance: While the nominator dismisses funding announcements as routine, the sustained financial coverage from major publications like Bloomberg, Forbes, and Wall Street Journal spanning multiple funding rounds over seven years actually demonstrates the type of ongoing attention that indicates notability. WP:CORPTRIV does not prohibit all financial coverage—it prohibits trivial financial coverage. When major business publications consistently cover a company's growth trajectory across multiple years, this represents substantial coverage of significant business developments, not routine announcements.

The nominator's assertion that partnerships with 18 of the top 20 global automakers and expansion into defense applications constitute mere "routine business reporting" misapplies WP:CORPTRIV. These represent exactly the "significant business activities" and "major corporate developments" that the policy explicitly recognizes as notable. The Harvard Business School case study alone provides the substantial, analytical coverage that clearly exceeds any reasonable interpretation of the WP:CORPTRIV threshold.

This article meets WP:CORP through multiple independent sources providing substantial coverage of technology, industry impact, and business significance that extends well beyond routine financial reporting.

Request for nomination withdrawal: Given the substantial evidence demonstrating clear notability under WP:CORP, I respectfully request that the nominator consider withdrawing this nomination. The article is supported by multiple independent sources providing substantial coverage that extends well beyond routine business reporting, including academic recognition, detailed technology analysis, and sustained industry coverage across multiple years and topics. Cal-batman (talk)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, a source assessment table would address the disagreement here about the quality of the sources provided in the article and discussion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 00:19, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Per Liz.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Benison (Beni · talk) 02:45, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This is a company therefore GNG/WP:NCORP requires at least two deep or significant sources with each source containing "Independent Content" showing in-depth information *on the company*. "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. I'm unable to identify any references that meet the criteria for establishing notability. Here's an analysis of sources (omitting primary sources or GHITS type references) with emphasis on those articles that others above claim to meet GNG/NCORP criteria. HighKing++ 18:41, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • All of the references based on funding and valuation are junk. Here's why. The $250m funding round with a $6b valuation are based on this Press Release dated March 12, 2024. Similarly, the series d media churn is all based on this PR from 2021. The latest series f is based on this. Notice that those references have the same date as the announcement (or later). Lets not be naive here - this is how marketing works. There is no original content in any of those articles. If some of the Keep !voters above disagree, lets discuss - post a link to one of the articles and point out the paragraphs containing original content.
-
Created with templates {{NCORPcheck table}} and {{NCORPcheck}}
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor.
Source Independent Content? In-depth? Overall establishes notability per NCORP
"Applied Intuition, whose software tests self-driving cars, grabs $40 million". Wall Street Journal. Retrieved 2025-07-11.
 No Relies entirely on information/quotes provided by the company and/or execs as part of the PR around their series B round (same date, quotes, etc) No no in-depth information contained in remaining independent content
"Inside one of Silicon Valley's most celebrated rituals: raising cash". Washington Post. 2016-08-29. Retrieved 2025-07-11.
 No There no in-depth information *about the company*
"Qasar Younis and Peter Ludwig of Applied Intuition: A startup with design in mind". Greatness by Floodgate (Podcast). Retrieved 2025-07-11.
 No It is an interview and relies entirely on information from the founders
"2025 Tech Defense Startups to Watch". Bloomberg Features. Retrieved 2025-07-11.
 No A company profile based on summarising existing company information No Four sentences is insufficient for CORPDEPTH
"Transportation: Most Innovative Companies 2025". Fast Company. Retrieved 2025-07-11.
 Yes No A mention-in-passing, single sentence
"Applied Intuition and military AI partnership". Axios. 2025-05-20. Retrieved 2025-07-11.
 No The article merely summarises a company announcement No Insufficient in-depth information about the company
No Relies entirely on an interview with the founder
No A mention in passing that contains no in-depth information about the company
No Relies entirely on a visit to the company's office and information/quotes provided by the company and/or execs
"Applied Intuition neue Partnerschaft mit Audi". Automobilwoche. Retrieved 2025-07-11.
 No Relies entirely on a joint company announcement - this is PR
No This also relies entirely on a joint company announcement - this is PR
No Based on this announcement and relies entirely on information/quotes provided by the company and/or execs
No Based on this announcement and relies entirely on information/quotes provided by the company and/or execs
No Based on this announcement and relies entirely on information/quotes provided by the company and/or execs
"Applied Intuition to buy autonomous trucking SPAC Embark for $71M". TechCrunch. 2023-05-25. Retrieved 2025-07-11.
 No Based on this announcement and therefore relies entirely on information/quotes provided by the company and/or execs
"Applied Intuition takes flight, sets sail in acquiring EpiSci". Breaking Defense. February 2025. Retrieved 2025-07-11.
 No Based on this announcement and therefore relies entirely on information/quotes provided by the company and/or execs No no in-depth information contained in remaining independent content
No There is no in-depth information *about the company*
It is difficult to find articles on this very valuable company that meet NCORP right now. I've omitted the case study because I cannot locate a copy to read, but from experience, not all case studies hosted by HBS meet the criteria but if someone wants to link to a non-paywalled version I'll give it a read. HighKing++ 20:47, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist for feedback on the source assessment table.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Left guide (talk) 14:38, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Text generated by a large language model (LLM) or similar tool has been collapsed per relevant Wikipedia guidelines. LLM-generated arguments should be excluded from assessments of consensus.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
  • Keep I want to weigh in again, and start by acknowledging the effort and seriousness HighKing brings to these discussions—it’s clear there’s a lot of practical experience here with Wikipedia sourcing standards and notability policies. For my part, I haven’t been as active an editor as some, and much of my time on Wikipedia is spent reading fun topics like old movies. But I’ve spent some time reviewing this article and its sources because I believe rigor and fairness matter, especially in these deletion debates.

Why I Support Retention

Significant, Independent Coverage The article’s references aren’t just routine corporate bulletins or PR rewrites. Multiple leading sources—Bloomberg, VentureBeat, Automotive News Europe, Nikkei Asia, Axios, Breaking Defense, among others—have published coverage that delves into Applied Intuition’s technology, industry partnerships, and strategic direction.

  • For example, Bloomberg and VentureBeat detail step-by-step how Applied Intuition’s simulation software is changing the landscape for autonomous vehicles, clearly placing the company within a wider industry and technological context.
  • Nikkei Asia and Automotive News Europe devote attention to major deals with Isuzu and TRATON, not simply announcing them but explaining their significance to industry developments.

Academic and Strategic Analysis There is also an independent case study from Harvard Business School that examines Applied Intuition’s business model and challenges. While I don’t have access to the full text to quote directly—and recognize the case is paywalled—it is cited in the article as an example of the kind of in-depth, analytical, secondary coverage that Wikipedia generally treats as especially strong for establishing company notability. If others have access and can speak to its details, that would be helpful to the discussion.

Diverse Coverage The article is built on reporting that covers technical innovation, business achievements, partnerships, acquisitions, and defense sector relevance—not just finance or personnel movements. Nearly every source provides some independent analysis or market context.

Wikipedia Policy Alignment Wikipedia’s notability guidelines (WP:CORP, WP:GNG) require significant, independent coverage in reliable sources—not a critical exposé or “deep dive” investigation for every company. Secondary analysis, market context, and substantive reporting over multiple years fit the bill, and that standard is met here.

I appreciate HighKing’s careful review and skepticism about routine or recycled press coverage, which helps keep the bar high for Wikipedia quality. My reading of both policy and these sources, though, leads me—and several others—to a different conclusion: substantial, in-depth, and independent coverage absolutely exists in this case.

Bottom line: From my perspective (acknowledging that I bring an outsider’s eye and am not a notability purist), Applied Intuition’s article meets the standards set out in Wikipedia policy, with more significant sourcing and secondary analysis than many company or tech articles. At the end of the day, we may weigh aspects of depth or independence differently, but I hope it’s clear this is an earnest disagreement, not an attempt to lower the bar.

I support keeping the article and appreciate everyone’s thoughtful input on both sides. Soxfanruthian (talk) 04:04, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Soxfanruthian we really don't consider AI chatbot generated walls-of-text. Please write in your own words, instead of feeding the machine. qcne (talk) 09:07, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep – The Harvard Business School case study is a paid academic resource so there are limitations on how much can be posted but below are some points.
The case discusses how Applied Intuition developed a virtual testing platform that aimed to dramatically reduce the time and cost required to validate ADAS and AV systems, addressing a critical bottleneck in bringing autonomous vehicles to market. (pages 2, 7)
It also covers how the company stands against competition, explaining that unlike legacy tool vendors, Applied Intuition positioned itself as an end-to-end solution for OEMs, with a focus on flexibility and rapid iteration. The case describes the competitive landscape and mentions the company's rivalry with companies like Waymo, Cruise, Aurora, and Baidu's Apollo. (pages 8–10)
The study notes that as autonomous mobility continued to evolve, Applied Intuition's platform became a vital component for companies racing to deploy safe and reliable driverless technology on public roads. (page 6)
It also talks about challenges the company faces, such as scaling up and dealing with competition from established players like Waymo, Cruise, and Aurora, as well as shifts in regulation and technology. (page 7 et al.)
The case includes analysis of how Applied Intuition began moving beyond automotive into areas like robotics and defense. (page 6)
The above points are from the case study, dated February 12, 2024. Cal-batman (talk) 15:06, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep – Posting again because my earlier rationale was flagged and closed for being too AI-generated. Just to be transparent, I did use an AI tool as part of reviewing the sources and understanding them against Wikipedia’s notability standards, I’m still getting up to speed on that. What follows is my own assessment after reading the discussion and the references.
From what I can see, the sources aren’t just reworded press releases or short news blurbs, they represent significant coverage, by independent outlets. I see coverage by Bloomberg, CNBC, VentureBeat, Nikkei Asia, and others that takes the time to explain what Applied Intuition does and how their tech fits into the self-driving field. E.g., Bloomberg got into how the company’s simulation software is used in industry and why that’s significatn. Nikkei Asia and Automotive News Europe do the same but with a focus on partnerships with Isuzu and Traton.
There’s the Harvard Business School case study that analyzed the company’s business model and the challenges it faces. I don’t have the whole thing in front of me since it’s paywalled, but from the points called out by calbatman it seems like a solid independent academic analysis on Wikipedia. I think that source would be considered independent and notable.
I also think the reporting is not just about funding rounds. I read a lot of the coverage listed and, yes, it talks about funding, but it seems in the context of their technical developments, new partnerships, acquisitions, expansion into defense tech, etc. It’s a mix—not just finance or corporate speak.
I appreciate HighKing’s compiling the table, but I just come to a different conclusion. For me, the independent and in-depth sourcing is there, but I see how other people might see them differently.
That’s my two cents. Again, I say keep. Thanks. Soxfanruthian (talk) 06:09, 19 July 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Applied_Intuition&oldid=1301414112"