Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/CoPilot (company)

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. ✗plicit 02:25, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

CoPilot (company)

[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)

Company does not appear to meet WP:NCORP; I can find a lot of sources that cite reports made by the company, but no independent, in-depth coverage about the company itself that would be required to make the company notable. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 02:21, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

For some context, I wanted to create a disambiguation page for CoPilot because I searched for CoPilot looking for Github's ML coding engine and it redirected me to an aviation page. I wanted to make sure there wasn't anything else so I searched "copilot npr" just to see if there was anything else that was being left out. I found a media page but no mention of npr so I searched "copilot npr car" and it brought up an NPR story. They were also referenced by Newsweeks, CNBC, and CNN as an authoritative source of pricing information. I think notability concerns mentioned about would be limited to significance of coverage because they are independent, nationwide media sources (reliable, check. secondary source, check.)

I would put forth that they unambiguously meet the significant coverage standard. Consider the following: "Deep or significant coverage provides an overview, description, commentary, survey, study, discussion, analysis, or evaluation of the product, company, or organization." I could speculate about how they make money but they aren't offering a physical product. Their product is the data they collect and analyze. If consensus could be reached about that fact, it becomes clear that these sources are discussing, surveying and providing commentary on the product. Within the article they treat the information as authoritative which is implicit commentary about the reliability of the product.

Additionally, I can't say that the coverage sinks to the level of trivial coverage. In the context of sourced coverage, I would consider a brief mention to be noting that X company has released X report as they do at X interval and maybe even highlighting an interesting factoid. In contrast, X motivates the main premise of the story. For example, in the Newsweek article the report is reference 5 times I think. In every case the credibility of the story's headline comes into question without discussion of the product. Here's how I would invite the significant coverage standard to be applied where there is doubt about significance: Is the coverage material to the story?

This standard creates a bright line: presupposes every trivial coverage example and elucidates the non-trivial. In every example of trivial coverage you could also follow it up with "and so you can remove the coverage without material changing the article or undermining the main thesis of the story."

Anyways just my two cents.

Brad Thomas Hanks (talk) 04:15, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

NewsWeek post-2013 may not a reliable source. Even if it were, the NewsWeek article, while it arguably contains in-depth coverage, fails the other criterion of "Independent Content", as every mention of CoPilot is to attribute some claim to it or its founders. The CNBC article has the same problem. The other sources are just passing mentions. Finally: the aviation term is the primary topic for "copilot", and it already has a hatnote to Co-pilot (disambiguation), which links to GitHub Copilot so there should be no confusion there. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 05:07, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Illinois. Shellwood (talk) 07:40, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete despite the diatribe above, the sources are unconvincing. Run of the mill non-notable company. PICKLEDICAE🥒 13:26, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, I don't see how this company is particularly notable. Not every company needs a page, and I don't see a reason to keep this one. Hey man im josh (talk) 13:29, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is a company therefore NCORP guidelines apply. I can't find any references that meet NCORP criteria for establishing notability. HighKing⁺⁺ 21:28, 28 August 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.