Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jasper AI

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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. signed, Rosguill talk 05:07, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Jasper AI

[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

Jasper AI (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)

Believe this fails WP:NCORP. Source assessment is below but there seems to be lack of WP:CORPDEPTH in the referencing. Company is an AI startup and based on a WP:BEFORE I can see they do a lot of promotion, but could be a case of WP:TOOSOON. CNMall41 (talk) 05:30, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

1. Techopedia, Industry blog which I don’t see as reliable. Allows sponsored posts and contributors. Some articles are marked as “fact checked” while this one is not.
2. Business Insider, this is a reliable secondary source but only gives a brief mention so fails WP:CORPDEPTH.
3. PC Guide, another industry blog. When you click on the link leading to Jasper AI, it has an affiliate code which means the publication is receiving commission for signups to the company. I would see this as non-independent.
4. Tracxn, Company profile listing such as Bloomberg or Crunchbase. Fails CORPDEPTH.
5. Bloomberg, routine announcement of corporate leadership change. Churnalism as there are several articles about this from other publications at the same time.
6. Jasper.ai, press release from the company’s own website. Not independent.
7. TechCrunch, This gets a little more in-depth and a case could be made this meets WP:ORGCRIT. I think it would be borderline due to much of the information being supplied by the company.
8. Investor Place, routine announcement of layoffs. Fails CORPDEPTH and also uses the information supplied by the company so not independent.
9. Voicebot.ai, tech blog churnalism similar to #8 above. Announcement of layoffs.
10. PC Guide, same evaluation as #3 above. Written as a way to earn affiliate income. See the number of AI platforms in the article as well as the affiliate links associated with each, including the one for Jasper AI.
11. The Information, This likely meets WP:ORGCRIT and has in-depth coverage and independent analysis.
12. Associated Press, brief mention and quote from the founder. Fails CORPDEPTH.
13. Venture Beat, routine announcement. Also, has a lot of information supplied direct from the company.
14. IEEE, I was only able to access the abstract and references, but does not appear to be about the company. Topic is about the AI writing process so likely only mentions Jasper in the process.
15. Jasper.ai, company website, not independent.
16. TechRepublic, another tech blog listing several AI companies with affiliate links to earn commission.
Disagree with CNMails assessment. By their interpretation of the rules, a good portion of wikipedia articles should be deleted, including Writer, Write Sonic, GPTZero, and more.. Comintell (talk) 22:01, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Also @CNMall41 moved this article to AfD after I published this article, and it was approved by an Admin. Comintell (talk) 22:03, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
A page "approved" through AfC does not mean that page is notable. It means the person reviewing (not an admin by the way) made a good faith effort to evaluate if it was likely to pass a deletion discussion. While I am sure that editor did their due diligence, I disagree that it would pass an AfD discussion. As such, we are here to get WP:CONSENSUS. As you stated you disagree with my source assessment, are you able to point out the WP:THREE references that meet the guideline outlined in WP:ORGCRIT?
Comintell, you wrote By their interpretation of the rules, a good portion of wikipedia articles should be deleted, and you are correct about that. Many articles should be deleted, and about half a million articles have been deleted since Wikipedia began. Currently, we are deleting roughly 55 articles a day, and that amounts to about 20,000 articles deleted per year. This is entirely correct. Articles that do not comply with policies and guidelines need to be either improved or deleted. See Deletion of articles on Wikipedia for more information. Cullen328 (talk) 04:39, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Do these count?
https://www.techradar.com/reviews/jasper-ai
https://www.businessinsider.com/generative-ai-startups-creator-economy-work-chatgpt-dalle-2023-1
https://www.cnbc.com/2023/02/17/jasper-generative-ai-conference-in-san-francisco-what-was-it-like.html
https://www.theinformation.com/articles/the-best-little-unicorn-in-texas-jasper-was-winning-the-ai-race-then-chatgpt-blew-up-the-whole-game
https://venturebeat.com/ai/top-ai-startup-news-of-the-week-jasper-you-com-otter-and-more/
https://www.zdnet.com/article/ai-challenger-cerebras-unveils-pay-per-model-large-model-ai-cloud-service-with-cirrascale-jasper/
https://techcrunch.com/2022/10/21/jaspers-robots-assemble-fresh-meals-for-nearby-apartment-dwellers/
https://venturebeat.com/ai/generative-ai-will-impact-every-tool-out-there-says-jasper-ceo/
https://techcrunch.com/2022/10/18/daily-crunch-ai-content-developer-jasper-now-valued-at-1-7b-following-capital-infusio Comintell (talk) 04:41, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comintell, instead of dumping a batch of nine bare URLs, it would be far more useful to select the very best three of them, and to add them to the article. Quality of sources is far more important than quantity. Cullen328 (talk) 04:49, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, you're right. Thank you for being patient with me. Comintell (talk) 04:55, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Editors are trying their best to guide you but it would be helpful to slow down and take in the advice. Please see this comment at the teahouse. To repeat, go to WP:ORGCRIT which describes the sourcing you will need to show notability. Use the guideline at WP:SIRS to refute anything in my assessment you feel is inaccurate. You can also do your own assessment of the links you pasted above by using WP:SIRS. --CNMall41 (talk) 05:03, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Source: Tech Crunch
Significant: Yes (Documents Jasper's $1.4B evaluation, a significant and notable achievement signalling notability and interest)
Independent: Yes
Reliable: Yes
Secondary: Yes
Link: https://techcrunch.com/2022/10/18/daily-crunch-ai-content-developer-jasper-now-valued-at-1-7b-following-capital-infusion/
Source: The Information
Significant: Yes (Documents Jaspers rise, and the challenges they're facing being a "ChatGPT wrapper" in the wake of ChatGPT)
Independent: Yes
Reliable: Yes
Secondary: Yes
Link: https://www.theinformation.com/articles/the-best-little-unicorn-in-texas-jasper-was-winning-the-ai-race-then-chatgpt-blew-up-the-whole-game
Source: VentureBeat
Significant: Yes (Demonstrates CEO as a trusted leader and founder in the space)
Independent: Yes
Reliable: Yes
Secondary: Yes
Link: https://venturebeat.com/ai/generative-ai-will-impact-every-tool-out-there-says-jasper-ceo/
Source: CNBC
Significant: Yes (Shows Jasper is hosting newsworthy events)
Independent: Yes
Reliable: Yes
Secondary: Yes
Link: https://www.cnbc.com/2023/02/17/jasper-generative-ai-conference-in-san-francisco-what-was-it-like.html
Source: TechRadar
Significant: Yes (Drew the attention of TR. seemingly unbiased review, containing no promo links *that I could find*)
Independent: Yes
Reliable: Yes
Secondary: Yes
Link: https://www.techradar.com/reviews/jasper-ai Comintell (talk) 05:05, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Based on the discussion it feels like the author desperately Ref-bombs (see Wikipedia:REFBOMB) the wiki community with WP:MILL links. However nothing more than just routine announcements are here. The article relies on primary-dependent sources or sources that do not provide significant, independent coverage. The user https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Vanderwaalforces reviewed the page on AfC just after 3 minutes the author of the page submitted it there. What a speed. It raises concerns about a potential conflict of interest, suggesting that the reviewer and author might be the same individual or working in collaboration --Javierel (talk) 14:40, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Javierel:, that is a pretty strong accusation and not appropriate for an AfD discussion. If you feel the user's action are nefarious, there are proper noticeboards to address the conduct. Pinging Vanderwaalforces so they are aware of the accusation. For the record, we are in the midst of a backlog drive for AfC so there are a lot of submissions being accepted quicker than normal. --CNMall41 (talk) 18:36, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Javierel This your concern is so inept. This is an AfD and I don't want to comment on your concern and will rather urge you to visit the talk page of an editor you have concerns with and not at an AfD. I would have requested further clarifications from you as per "the reviewer and author might be the same individual or working in collaboration" but won't because there's no need for that at least from my side. A reviewer accepting a draft article few minutes after it was submitted for review is exactly the same thing as an administrator speedy deleting a page few minutes after it was tagged for speedy deletion. Think twice before making comments please. I wish you well. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 19:35, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I was told in the teahouse to find more/better references quickly and make a case for sustaining the page. Not in cahoots with anyone, just wanted to create my first page and tried to find something that was notable enough. In a topic I read a lot about---AI. I thought based on the size of notability it was a slam dunk. Jasper was the up-and-coming AI writing company that was set to be the leader and its category until open AI unleased ChatGPT to the world. I think it's a fascinating story and prospects, and definitely something that deserves an encyclopedia entry. This time is a very historical time, and despite Jasper being a "chatGPT wrapper" they gained serious traction.
I wholeheartedly believe it would be a tragedy to see the page deleted rather than improved, but I will leave it to the mercy of the experienced editors, and Admins here, and tread carefully next time I create or submit a page. Having taken time to revert vandal edits and contribute and improve articles here, I completely understand the issue with "people" (many times bots it seems) filling the space with junk, but I don't think the inclusion of Jasper is junk.
I blame myself for not finding better references initially. I do want to think @CNMall41 for treating me with respect, as the majority of other Wikipedians have. This is after all a volunteer project and the community is everything. I also wholeheartedly defend @Vanderwaalforces review and approval (Not that my opinion matters or means anything.)
it is strange feeling like I did something wrong, in the sense of creating this page and garnering COI concerns when having none. It almost feels like the premise of a Kafka novel. As I sit here (overthinking) this situation, I can't help but find humor in the idea of eagerly contributing to an under-equipped project needing more dedicated and passionate editors, donating their time to nurturing it's vast library, paid only by passion (and perhaps pride) --- only to end up feeling as though I've made a contribution so poor that concern not merely warranted, but justified.
Yet I can't help but still feel as though despite making a few newbie mistakes, still having contributed something that is worthy, and within guidelines.
Bottom line: I want to again say thank you to those who are encouraging me, and who have offered their time to give me constructive feedback and criticism. I hope I don't come off as an immature person pouting. If the admins conclusively agree that this page is not notable or within guidelines, then may the deletion be dealt. I hold no resentment for anyone here. I apologize if this is inappropriate for the AfD page. Comintell (talk) 01:53, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comintell, creating a brand new article is probably the most demanding task a new editor can take on. Even if this article is deleted (and I'm not sure what will happen), view this as gaining experience for future articles you might want to take on. But even the most experienced Wikipedia editors have first articles that they are not exactly proud of now. It's difficult to meet Wikipedia's standards for notability and reliable sourcing so, again, take the discussion here as part of your education as an editor. Good luck. Liz Read! Talk! 03:18, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you @Liz you are really a great guiding voice. Comintell (talk) 03:22, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Weak keep I need to spend some time with sources (and with NORG) before forming a more solid opinion, but on a purely anecdotal level, JasperAI is one of a very short list of companies that made it on my syllabus and into my assignments last time I was teaching AI. I'm going to do a little more digging, and I'd ask editors to (as much as possible) set aside gut reactions against the riding tide of AI swill and look at this one on its own merits. AI startups are a dime a dozen and produce torrents of promo, but I think this specific one may have some claims to notability. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 04:28, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Having now spent some time with the article, I think the WP:THREE best sources are these:
To me, this feels like a compellingly 'sustained' story with more to it than just press releases. I also read dozens of AI articles that use Jasper as their first example, spend 2-3 paragraphs discussing it, and emphasize the unusual notability of its high valuation. I am usually skeptical about org notability so I only lean keep, but I think the article in its current state is basically worth having. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 05:44, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for providing the source evaluation. I am sure you are not insinuating, but I will clarify that my recommendation was not a gut reaction to AI. I use several AI programs myself. This is all about WP:NCORP and the requirements of notability for Wikipedia. Note that NCORP is a pretty high standard and the references need to be evaluated individually using WP:SIRS. The Informant is about the only reference that meets WP:ORGCRIT (the specific section of NCORP related to references. While TechCrunch seems good on its face, it would be considered a trade publication under WP:ORGIND and a routine announcement of funding and valuation with much of the content supplied by the company itself (quite a few quotes). While the company is obviously a major player in the marketplace, it doesn't have the coverage needed to show notability in my opinion.--CNMall41 (talk) 07:08, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The snark about AI was probably uncalled for on my part and honestly more about my own knee jerk against these companies! Not intended for the active participants, rather for new folks reading later. Thanks for your detailed attention to this article. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 18:01, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't take it as an attack. I understand what you are saying as AI does have a cloud around it at the moment. I will say that NCORP standards are pretty stringent and I do not see how the references cited would get over that bar but I again appreciate your assessment. --CNMall41 (talk) 03:38, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Another note for the closer— if the consensus is to delete, I’d like to request draftification to my userspace; I think the article reflects a lot of good work and if new news happens in the next year (bringing new coverage) it would be nice not to start from scratch. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 18:18, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You can always copy and paste the information into a draft in your userspace. That wouldn't need admin action. --CNMall41 (talk) 03:38, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@CNMall41 no, that's not a good idea. That would violate attribution requirements. -- asilvering (talk) 00:26, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Not if its attributed. --CNMall41 (talk) 20:53, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'll examine the THREE sources relied on by LEvalyn above
  • Techcrunch article is based entirely on Jasper AI's funding announcement of the same date and quotes/information provided by the company/exec or parts of their blog. There is no "Independent Content" - nothing here is the opinion/analysis/investigation of the journalist, it is merely a regurgitation of company info - and it fails WP:ORGIND.
  • This in The Information] appears to be entirely based on an interview. I am unable to find the full article anywhere - perhaps somebody else can confirm it contains "Independent Content"? But on the face of it I believe it is unlikely to meet ORGIND.
  • Another from The Information but I am also unable to find the full article anywhere - perhaps someone can confirm whether it contains any "Independent Content"?
I'm unable to identify any references that meet the criteria for establishing notability, but then again I'm unable to see full versions of some of the references. At this point, based on my own searching, I'm leaning towards a Weak Delete. HighKing++ 13:38, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for this. I usually edit on books so I’m still getting the hang of NORG. Do you/anyone think the TechRadar review qualifies? TR is fiercely independent in their reviews but I was on the fence about whether a review of the product is “about” the company. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 18:08, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi LEvalyn, can I suggest that you make this topic about the product, not the company. It seems to me that there are sufficient in-depth reviews about the product to meet the criteria - you need to find in-depth "Independent Content" reviews of the product - for example the TechRadar article meets the criteria IMO. HighKing++ 11:11, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
TechRadar would be a trade publication and would not pass WP:ORGIND in my opinion. --CNMall41 (talk) 03:40, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't regard TechRadar as a trade publication at all. Trade publications are solely for those "in the trade" - for example from this List of trade magazines we can see Cranes Today aimed at the construction industry. TechRadar is aimed at consumers and computing professionals and anybody who wants to stay abreast of "tech" news - you are likely to get articles ranging from advances in chip manufacturing to a new mobile phone to bugs in Windows 11 to AI-generated art. HighKing++ 11:11, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting given late suggestions to reorient this article's focus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 08:14, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep This requires cleaning. User seems to be new, but they seem to have good intentions. Upon evaluating the sources in the article, its clear that most if not all sources demonstrate clear GNG and go beyond it. The sources demonstrate 1. Significance and that 2. they are independent (no press releasing, ad posts). 3. Are reliable 4. are secondary (Wired, The Verge, and The Information) > These sources alone indicate the subject is worthy of a page. Page does need improvement. Upon looking through history seems page made it through AfC. Cgallagher2121 (talk) 05:11, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Amazing that with only a dozen edits (outside the two deleted promotional pages), you were able to find this AfD. Kudos to you. The AfD is NOT about the user, it is about the page and whether it meets ntoability guidelines. The applicable guideline is WP:NCORP which has not been met. And another claim that this "made it through AfC" is not a proper argument to keep. --CNMall41 (talk) 06:49, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
🥱 Edited on IP. But guess my vote or opinion don't mean squat. Cgallagher2121 (talk) 19:12, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It would mean more if it had some depth and analysis to it. I would say the formatting and placement of your vote indicates you didn't do much editing from an IP but that's a different topic for a different venue. --CNMall41 (talk) 19:57, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I'm ambivalent about changing focus to the product. There may be more independent product reviews out there, but I don't personally know what venues would be considered reliable, to check them. I also think an article about the product is less useful than one about the company. I disagree that the article reads like an advertorial (it doesn't say anything positive about the company...?) but regardless NPOV is not an AfD rationale. I don't care to continue working on the article at this time, but I'd still request draftification as an alternative to deletion (to keep the edit attribution) in case new events and new coverage occur. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 00:47, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep it meets WP:CORPDEPTH.
Press coverage is not Trivial, nor is it standard. For instance, the argument that @Cortador makes saying Business Insider is not reliable is opinion. Wikipedia lists the reliability of Insider as neutral.
VentureBeat, lists the company indepth. The refernce from Forbes staff, while teetering on a mention, supports the notability in the fact that it was mentioned as a direct fulcrum point to the story about Writer Inc. Comintell (talk) 06:03, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Also just added and found https://venturebeat.com/ai/ai-to-star-in-the-launch-of-webflows-built-in-app-ecosystem/
Mentions a paragraph about Jasper and included original reporting/coverage Comintell (talk) 06:10, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I also just found this article on Wired: https://www.wired.com/story/ai-generated-marketing-content/ Comintell (talk) 06:13, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Don't put words in my mouths. There are no neutral sources, there's only sources whose status has not been determined, and Business Insider has not been deemed reliable at this point. Cortador (talk) 07:04, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It hasn't been deemed unreliable either. There are tons of reliable sources that haven't been deemed "reliable" or "unreliable" that are news organizations that have a history of checking facts and reliability. Read the source list. The exclusion from reliable sources and unreliable listings does not mean a source is or isn't inherently unreliable. At that point when a source is neutral, you're supposed to use your brain, read the publication, and determine if they are reliable. A source does not have to be deemed reliable to be used; they only have to actually be a RELIABLE source, OR not be marked as unreliable. Comintell (talk) 18:07, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Let's look at these sources. The Wired article is decent, but it is not focused on Jasper. It is about "marketing copy" and discusses Jasper (along with others) briefly. The VentureBeat reference also does not meet WP:CORPDEPTH and looking closer it is written by a contributor. Looking further, that contributor claims that they have "worked with media companies from the US and Canada to create compelling and exciting online content out of today's news." A lot of the content in the VB reference is supplied by Jasper (I can confirm through an online search that this was an interview) so I am not sure we can make a compelling argument that this particular article is WP:INDEPENDENT. For the Business Insider reference, the reliability of the source is moot as it only mentions Jasper one time in passing. Out of all the sources presented so far in this AfD, the only one I see that meets WP:ORGCRIT is this. --CNMall41 (talk) 07:02, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla @SUPERHEROLOGIST 07:04, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think the Jasper AI article definitely deserves a place on Wikipedia when you consider the attention it has received from sources. These sources align with Wikipedias standards for notability such as WP:ORGCRIT and WP:GNG. TechCrunch, a technology journalism outlet extensively covers Jasper AIs fundraising success and its status as a "startup unicorn." This coverage satisfies the need for exposure under WP:CORPDEPTH. The Information provides an in depth analysis of Jasper AIs journey and the challenges it faces after ChatGPT. The coverage covers the cultural impact, and growth of the company, and highlights the companies relevance. IMO Ticks off the boxes of WP:ORGCRIT and WP:CORPDEPTH.
Jasper was one of the first AI writing tools on the market, and I would argue that notability is defined by the level of coverage they get. I would say 90% of other companies do not have such substantial media coverage. Comintell (talk) 20:13, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
AfD is not cleanup. Can you address the notability for those who will review and close the discussion? --CNMall41 (talk) 21:09, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment Trash the TechCrunch dude. Im an inventor and can tell you thats what really is causing strife. They're a cheapo trade pub that is all about internal politics. If removed it's maybe worthy. My class teaches encyclopedic writing by the way. Ditch the TechCrunch and let me edit on the weekend and I will do much better writing. Remove Tech Crunch and its Keep from me. This jasper product is also one big LIE. FYI. But yes students try it and get A's sometimes, but mostly Fs. Also if you don't think I can write better than you, i'll give you my IP and you'll see the work I have done. If I was bias I would say delete, but as a scientist I must not be. AaronVick (talk) 09:15, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
What does this even mean? Tech Crunch is the only issue? Comintell (talk) 20:40, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I also question what this means and your edit history also raises questions but that's a different topic for a different venue. I am wondering if you could address the notability of the topic here at the AfD, similar to how you would as a scientist, dude. --CNMall41 (talk) 21:17, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
As I said TechCrunch is a big nothing burger newssite. Changing my vote to delete because I still see it's listed
  • Delete
AaronVick (talk) 02:45, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Have to admit I have never heard someone call themselves a scientist and then also use the terms "dude" and "nothingburger." Anyway, your votes are conflicting if you can strike one it would be helpful to reviewers. The presence of a reference does not make a page any more reliable than not. Can you clarify if you feel the references meet WP:ORGCRIT in your opinion?--CNMall41 (talk) 04:47, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Comintell:, please take your concerns to ANI or SPI. I understand your passion as the creator of this page, but your edits (here, at ANI, and other pages) are now a WP:BLUDGEON. Time to WP:DROPTHESTICK.--CNMall41 (talk) 20:37, 5 December 2023 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Jasper_AI&oldid=1188710084"