Draft talk:Applied Intuition

Draft status

I see that it is noted "no claim to notability, no secondary sources, previously repeatedly created by sockfarm". Where do I put (1)? For (2), the references are secondary sources (WSJ, The Washington Post, etc.). Not sure what is meant by (3). RajeshKumar12 (talk) 21:24, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

The Washington Post article is not about Applied Intuition, it mentions the company in one paragraph of a 1500-word article about self-driving cars, and that paragraph quotes the CEO, so it is not a secondary source. The WSJ source is based on a press release (the exact same PR as the Venturebeat source), so it is not secondary. That there is no claim to notability is connected to the fact that there are no sources. Please read this information about what is required, and note that Wikipedia is not interested in what the company says about themselves in press releases or interviews, only in what people who are wholly unconnected to the company say about them. That the article has been repeatedly created by multiple accounts used by the same marketing person is not something you can do anything about. --bonadea contributions talk 21:48, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

Hmm... The Washington Post comment makes sense, but the Forbes article seems to be notable. Looking at the link you posted and the criteria in the table: significant (> $1 billion valued company, meaning that it is a 'unicorn' company which is considered significant in the software industry, with Toyota as a customer cited), independent (written by a senior editor / staff writer at Forbes), reliable (Forbes is a reliable source), and secondary (the information used from the article in the post is not information that is quoted by their CEO). Please correct me if I'm making a mistake here - this is my first "new" post on Wikipedia. That (Forbes article) is originally the only article I had cited when I saw the missing link on Qasar Younis' page, and added these sources later. RajeshKumar12 (talk) 22:37, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

@Bonadea, what are your thoughts? RajeshKumar12 (talk) 23:24, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

"Significant" has nothing to do with how large a company is or how much money it is good for – it is not "a significant company" but significant coverage, that is, sources that are specifically about the topic and talk about it in depth. The word "significant" is meant to be as opposed to "trivial", which might be a short news notice about a topic, or a brief mention of the topic in a source that's really about something else. (More info here.) The Forbes article is specifically about the company, but since it is in fact a slightly re-written press release is is not independent, so it does not show notability. Regards, --bonadea contributions talk 14:25, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

Hmm.. what about these articles here? Bloomberg: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-09-12/how-self-driving-cars-can-get-past-the-learning-permit-stage-without-any-risk, Nikkei: https://www.nikkei.com/article/DGXMZO66441880Z11C20A1TJ1000, and Handelsblatt: https://www.handelsblatt.com/unternehmen/mittelstand/familienunternehmer/qasar-younis-dieser-gruender-will-autonomes-fahren-schneller-moeglich-machen/25232612.html?ticket=ST-17162512-fzP0EaC77FGUXMSAAZhx-ap2. All of these sources are significant, independent, reliable, and secondary, and there are multiple. RajeshKumar12 (talk) 15:38, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

I can't access the bloomberg.com source nor the Nikkei source; the Handelsblatt source is an interview with Younis so not secondary. Please do not move this draft to article space yourself – I'll restore it for you so you can submit it for review if you should wish. Thanks, --bonadea contributions talk 17:25, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

Can you try opening the pages in an incognito window? They should be accessible. RajeshKumar12 (talk) 17:41, 23 December 2020 (UTC)