Cerego (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)

This one may be close but appears to me to fail WP:NCORP. References from Venture Beat and The Next Web are churnalism based on the announcement of the company's launch back in 2012. There is this which appears to meet WP:ORGCRIT but everything else is routine announcements or brief mentions. Cannot find anything in a WP:BEFORE that meets WP:CORPDEPTH. CNMall41 (talk) 21:26, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Technology, Computing, United States of America, and California. CNMall41 (talk) 21:28, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Delete. In addition to Business Journals piece, there's [1] from NPR and [2] from Forbes. Both seem significant and independent to me, so I think this would qualify as multiple examples of GNG. InsomniaOpossum (talk) 05:58, 15 February 2025 (UTC) retracting vote, I was not aware of WP:FORBESCON, thank you CNMall41 for linking the policy. Without that source I don't see this meeting notability guidelines, and it was already a narrow pass to begin with. Zzz plant (talk) 01:54, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:FORBESCON. I'd also think a company that is over 25 years old would have more than one WP:ORGCRIT reference from 2014 if it was in fact notable under WP:NCORP. --CNMall41 (talk) 22:16, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:57, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

*Comment I believe it passes GNG based on the source analysis and mentions. Could be on a weaker side though NatalieTT (talk) 19:47, 18 February 2025 (UTC)—WP:SOCKSTRIKE. Best, Reading Beans, Duke of Rivia 15:23, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be curious which sources would meet WP:ORGCRIT in your opinion.--CNMall41 (talk) 06:25, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The WSJ, NPR, and the military publications are significantly about the company's product(s). I can't judge the reliability of the military pubs but they do provide information about product use that seems solid. That said, the article could use work if it's going to provide useful info. Lamona (talk) 04:31, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Are you saying that WSJ satisfies WP:CORPDEPTH? Sources must meet WP:ORGCRIT and I do not see any, other than NPR, that would meet that criteria. --CNMall41 (talk) 06:25, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that is what I am saying. And that I consider the military articles to be relevant and reliable. I also see other sources, such as:

• "Cerego's iKnow! Wins Prestigious DEMOgod Award at DEMOfall 08." Science Letter, 30 Sept. 2008, p. 3270. Gale Academic OneFile, link.gale.com/apps/doc/A185816485/AONE?u=sfpl_main&sid=ebsco&xid=aaa046a9. Accessed 20 Feb. 2025.
• "McGraw-Hill Education and Cerego." Tech & Learning, vol. 35, no. 9, Apr. 2015, p. 48. Gale Academic OneFile, link.gale.com/apps/doc/A419267807/AONE?u=sfpl_main&sid=ebsco&xid=04a4f19c. Accessed 20 Feb. 2025.
• "Cerego." Training, vol. 56, no. 6, Nov.-Dec. 2019, p. 8. Gale Academic OneFile, link.gale.com/apps/doc/A608614910/AONE?u=sfpl_main&sid=ebsco&xid=b3437ac8. Accessed 20 Feb. 2025.
• CEREGO & BBC BITESIZE. (2019, March 1). Tech & Learning, 39(7), 39.

I looked at these and they don't seem to be re-hashes of PR (there is quite a lot of that). I haven't looked at how they might fit into the article. Lamona (talk) 02:20, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The first is a routine announcement and the other are mentions so they fall short of WP:CORPDEPTH imho.--CNMall41 (talk) 18:24, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There is still the WSJ, NPR and the military sources. And here's another one relating to Cerego and BBC: [3]. I count this now as 5 sources. One could argue that they are more about the product than the company, and that comes up a lot with products. Ideally the article should decide which it is emphasizing. Lamona (talk) 04:35, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I meant plural - "the others are mentions so they fall short." - BBC may meet CORPDEPTH, but the rest, including this one you just cited, is considered a routine announcement so fails WP:ORGCRIT. --CNMall41 (talk) 22:35, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 07:55, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: In addition to the NPR and Military.com sources I also found an article in New Scientist [4] through TWL. A small section of the article that I think shows its value, including a comment from someone else about the company and its science.

" "It's all very plausible and reasonable. They know their literature," says Ryan Baker, an educational technology researcher at Worcester Polytechnic Institute in Massachusetts. "I haven't seen any commercial products that put together all these different things."

" Cerego doesn't yet have any published results to back up the claims made for the product. But Smith Lewis says they are working on this, and points to preliminary tests on language acquisition, run over five weeks at the University of Hawaii and reviewed by Cerego's scientific adviser, Jan Plass at New York University. In those tests, users improved their retention of factual material by a factor of three compared to a visually identical system that didn't run the spacing algorithm.

Additionally, this is a study[5] that used Cerego and spends a paragraph talking about it in what I think is their own words. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Moritoriko (talk • contribs) 01:19, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete This is a company therefore GNG/WP:NCORP requires at least two deep or significant sources with each source containing "Independent Content" showing in-depth information *about the company*. "Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. I'm unable to identify any references that meet the criteria for establishing notability. Some sources have been mentioned above but clearly, when examined through NCORP lens, they don't meet the criteria - for exampleL:

• This NPR article mentioned above relies entirely on a "partner" and the company's blog post sprinkled with some extra marketing blurb - fails both ORGIND and CORPDEPTH.
• The New Scientist article plainly relies entirely on the "launch" blurb for the company, repeating comments provided by the company and founder. Once you remove everything provided by the company, all that's left is the quote from Ryan Baker which says nothing about the company. Fails both CORPDEPTH and ORGIND.
• Perhaps it wasn't noticed about the military.com article but the article is written by customers/partners - therefore not independent, fails ORGIND.
• The BBC Bitesize article is - a PR announcement, fails ORGIND.

Wikipedia is not a platform for promotion. Delete. HighKing⁺⁺ 15:39, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 10:38, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: There just isn't enough to satisfy WP:CORP or even WP:ORGCRIT. There's a lot of churnalism and nothing concrete enough to base a standalone article. It's close, but not quite there yet.--DesiMoore (talk) 15:43, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]