Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zoox (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 keep. ST47 (talk) 18:54, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Zoox (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)

So highly promotional as to need complete rewriting. As written , the article implies that the firm has created fully autonomous vehicles on a completely original design and gotten a permit to use them.

It has not done that. It has gotten a permit to use retrofitted conventional vehicles as autonomous vehicles, and hopes to develop its totally new design. It seems to be at an early stage of testing, based on the sources.

I tried to adjust it on the basis of the sources, but it would take complete rewriting. The company does seem to be notable , so it would be worth someone doing it. If anyone wants to rewrite, let me know. DGG ( talk ) 03:53, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 06:57, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 06:57, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@DGG: I've given it a five-minute re-write. I will leave for others to determine whether it now makes the grade. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 08:34, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. It does have some sources which raise above the level of press-releases and business as usual reports that pollute this category. Stil, CNBC coverage is a video. news.com.au is a WP:INTERVIEW, NPR and Gizmodo halfway, but Wired and SFChronicle articles seem rather decent. I can't access full text of the WSJ article, but the odds are it is decent too, I mean, it WSJ. As 90% of my votes on company's AfDs are 'delete this spam', well, I can't say it this time, this company likely passes NCORP/GNG. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:12, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:24, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notable company based on coverage in Forbes, Sydney Morning Herald, Reuters, Business Insider, NPR, Wired, Axios, etc. just a terribly done article. Trillfendi (talk) 07:46, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

are you perhaps willing to rewrite it? DGG ( talk ) 01:12, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:31, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:31, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Super sad keep Props to them for being able to generate news.com.au coverage out of the question of what do they do. The answer is try to invent self driving cars. Even more credit to them for being able to generate so much coverage that refers to them as mysterious or secretive. Clearly their PR knows what it's doing. While most of the coverage is routine, non-notablity generating stuff like funding and personnel moves, the CNBC video, news.com.au, and Wired all strike me as NCORP compliant and thus notability establishing. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 01:23, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Passes WP:NCORP.4meter4 (talk) 16:18, 1 October 2019 (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.