Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Scite.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 delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:27, 27 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Scite.ai

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

• How to contribute
• Introduction to deletion process
• Guide to deletion (glossary)
• Help, my article got nominated for deletion!

Scite.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)

Promotional article written by the company's CEO MrsSnoozyTurtle 02:58, 20 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment decently sourced, not sure how trusted "Learned Publishing" is for a journal. COI is always an issue here. Oaktree b (talk) 03:25, 20 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Education, and Software. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:11, 20 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Actually, I think the sourcing in the current version is pretty bad. Background reading (like a paper from 1964) or press releases from organizations that have adopted/affiliated with scite.ai cannot contribute to notability. There might be a notability case to be made, based on news items in the specialist press, but apart from one decent example [1] they look to be pretty superficial [2] and probably don't meet our standard for covering corporations. XOR'easter (talk) 15:26, 20 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter (talk) 15:28, 20 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Yeah, I don't see much independent or reliable non-promotional coverage here. All the current citations are either the company's employees, or barely mention the database at all. I agree with XOR'easter, this is basically it. I don't think that's enough for a wikipedia page per WP:GNG and WP:NCORP, personally. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 15:34, 20 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I agree, I'm not seeing anything to suggest this meets our notability criteria. HighKing⁺⁺ 16:14, 21 November 2022 (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.