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. Sandstein 08:28, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

MindMeld[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:NOTPROMO and no assertion of notability. The sources primarily detail funding cycles, and I don't actually see a product mentioned anywhere. The "awards" aren't really for anything tangible, either. MSJapan (talk) 01:54, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:39, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:39, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Funding rounds don't make an encyclopedic article - David Gerard (talk) 07:57, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: based on WP:SIGCOV in Fast Company, Business Insider, and Digital Trends. Also, TechCrunch. These are all articles about the company's AI app. Safehaven86 (talk) 18:08, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Safehaven86: I normally wouldn't ping for a vote, but I think in this case you need to be aware that, according to a COI editor on the article talk, the app "was a demo that has been discontinued." So all that coverage is meaningless hype. They have no viable product, and the coverage would only be usable for notability of the app, which never actually existed. MSJapan (talk) 20:13, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Huh. Is it possible the app existed but was discontinued? This article in Entrepreneur magazine says "More than 1,200 companies are using MindMeld to power the voice-recognition feature on their user interfaces...MindMeld is free of charge until it processes 1,000 voice queries per month; after that, volume-based monthly fees range from $49 (for up to 10,000 voice searches) to $1,999 (for up to 800,000 voice searches)." Based on that, it seems the app must have been live at some point. Safehaven86 (talk) 20:35, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I'd note the "clients" could be unsubstantiated claims by the CEO. I'm more inclined to lean towards the talk page comment being correct, as there's literally nothing on their own website to support the level of usage claimed - there's literally no press from 2015 linked in their press room area. If the company won't even say that they have 1200 clients, I've got to wonder, and I don't know why you kill a startup product with that kind of userbase. BTW, it's exactly this kind of thing that drives reliance on "sources independent of the subject." There's no other article on the app that claims that userbase, either. I think the only thing we can say for certain is that it was a short-lived product, and that runs afoul of the second part of WP:NTEMP. The COI was disclosed as an affiliated account here, so if they say it was a demo, then I'm inclined to believe that and weight the material accordingly. MSJapan (talk) 21:31, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

According to this, "MindMeld 2.0" was "currently in trial with Spotify" as of December 2015. Their own website says "MindMeld launched its core offering, the MindMeld platform, in 2014." So it seems like there was a 2014 launch, then 2.0 launched in 2015, then MindMeld TV launched in 2016. I'm not sure any of this is getting us closer to establishing WP:GNG. The point's well taken that if we can't find precise, well-sourced info on the company history, it makes it hard to write an encyclopedic article on it. Safehaven86 (talk) 21:59, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as anything that has been offered and added is PR and PR alone, exactly like what unifies both the information and sources, the awards are entirely PR and trivial, nothing that comes close at all to actual substance. Given the sheer state of churnalism, simply stating that there are listed major news sources is not meaning anything at all if the contents themselces are PR and company PR alone. To state the obvious, the article itself only happily goes to state the specifics about what there is to advertise about the company which what it is, the services and how it works. Examining the history again shows the clear PR connections and it's entirely unbelievable and unacceptable this was actually accepted at AfC given that I especially would never accept such fluff-puff. SwisterTwister talk 02:17, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:PROMO; strictly advertorial content with a (usual) list of awards and recognition, all of which are minor. No indications of notability or significance. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:18, 27 September 2016 (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.