Deletion of DeepScale

Comment: per DGG and 104gli. Passes . An SNG can not override GNG
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:SIGCOV)

Comment: Delete''' After reviewing references and searching online, I cannot locate sufficient references that meet the criteria for establishing notability. Existing references appear to be based on announcements or research from the company or connected companies, inclusion in "Top 10" type lists, quotations/interviews with people connected to the company and primary sources. Topic fails GNG and . There are multiple sources that provide Independent Content and meet the criteria for establishing notability, passes GNG/NCORP
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:NCORP)

Comment: An examination of the sources provided by Cunard above. Just to point out that references that are based entirely on company announcements, funding announcements and interviews usually fail the criteria for establishing notability because they do not contain any "Independent Content" which is defined as follows: ''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.'' A simple way of thinking about it is that if the journalist does not provide any of their own input in terms of opinion/analysis/investigation/etc and only parrots what either the company itself or others who are linked to the comapny have said, then the article fails. https://web.archive.org/web/20191103230225/https://www.eetimes.com/document.asp?doc_id=1332325 This from eetimes is based on "an exclusive interview" and therefore fails . It's churnalism. https://web.archive.org/web/20191103230416/https://techcrunch.com/2017/03/21/deepscale-raises-3-million-for-perception-ai-to-make-self-driving-cars-safe/ This from techcrunch is based on their announcement of raising seed finance and fails . The https://web.archive.org/web/20191103231452/https://techcrunch.com/2019/10/01/tesla-acquires-computer-vision-startup-deepscale-in-push-towards-autonomy/ second Techcrunch reference appears to be a summary of other articles in other sources and also fails by not containing any Independent Content, fails . ″The reference https://web.archive.org/web/20191103231714/https://www.cnbc.com/2019/10/01/tesla-acquiring-deepscale-computer-vision-start-up-for-self-driving.html from cnbc, https://web.archive.org/web/20191103232018/https://fortune.com/2019/10/02/tesla-autopilot-ai-deepscale/ this from Fortune, https://web.archive.org/web/20191004082521/https://arstechnica.com/cars/2019/10/how-teslas-latest-acquisition-could-accelerate-autopilot-development/ this from Ars Technica, https://web.archive.org/web/20191004024354/https://observer.com/2019/10/tesla-elon-musk-acquire-self-driving-startup-deepscale-autopilot/ this from the Observer, https://web.archive.org/web/20191101221238/https://www.engadget.com/2019/10/01/tesla-buys-deepscale/ this from Engadget and https://web.archive.org/web/20191014140528/https://www.cnet.com/roadshow/news/tesla-deepscale-autonomous-self-driving-tech/ this from cnet are all entirely based on the announcement that the company was being acquired by Tesla. All reference the CNBC announcement and the CEO's LinkedIn "announcement". The information about the company is clearly attributable to a source affiliated with the company and there is no "Independent Content". They all fail 
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:ORGIND||WP:ORGIND||WP:ORGIND||WP:ORGIND)

Comment: article is written very much from insider's POV and borders on . The Tesla acquisition just gets it over the line in terms of notability, but I could see this comping up for deletion at a later point to be merged into the Tesla article
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:PROMO)