Preamble, Inc.: While they've been around for three years, the only references are passing mentions (in a long list of companies) in an arXiv paper, a venture firm's website, a podcast interview, a Forbes profile of the founder (which makes no mention of "Preamble"), a Medium post, and a press release by a research organization that doesn't mention Preamble in the body text at all (it is mentioned only in a footnote).  I could not find any additional sources for this article by doing a WP:BEFORE search.  jp × g 08:55, 10 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Business , Companies ,  and Computing .  jp × g 08:55, 10 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - There is absolutely nothing that meets WP:ORGCRIT .  -- CNMall41 ( talk ) 09:05, 10 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 09:14, 10 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment : I've declined an A7 nomination here, since there's a plausible claim of significance – that this firm discovered prompt injection attacks , whatever they may be.  But it was in my view right on the edge, and I'm not convinced that that claim is fully supported by the source.  Justlettersandnumbers ( talk ) 09:38, 10 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Respectable call on the decline.  I did some digging on "prompt injection attacks" and it was a vulnerability with GPT-3 which is now irrelevant.  Press mentions of them finding it but nothing in-depth to show notability.  -- CNMall41 ( talk ) 20:14, 10 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment . No, its not irrelevant I think is still important and I copied it from the Prompt engineering page. Please see some sources from the industry and I added some as well. Thanks 1 2 3 techcrunch and 5 TechMak ( talk ) 15:20, 11 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Which of these five references meets the criteria of WP:ORGCRIT ? I looked at all of them and in my opinion, none. But, I am wiling to discuss in case there is something I missed. -- CNMall41 ( talk ) 20:46, 11 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] You said it was a vulnerability with GPT-3 which is now irrelevant, that's why I shared these articles so you can see that its not irrelevant and still exists.  TechMak ( talk ) 08:30, 17 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] My questions is very specific.  Which of the references you presented meets WP:ORGCRIT ?  The content, relevant or not, holds no weight without ORGCRIT which is is what will be needed to show notability.  Are you able to specify?  -- CNMall41 ( talk ) 03:09, 18 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Prompt injections are definitely not irrelevant, but I'm not personally convinced that Preamble's part in discovering the attack is enough for notability.  Popo Dameron ⁠ talk 20:47, 11 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Seconding that these remain relevant, but I do not see any credible source saying that Preamble "invented" or "first discovered" them; the ref given is basically quoting them that it happened.  It does not really demonstrate that nobody did this prior to May 2022 (a claim which is almost risible in and of itself).  jp × g 21:13, 12 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Yes you may be right but do you have any lead on who invented it before them?  On Wikipedia if someone invented or founded something that is surely considered notable but if you can demonstrate that it would be helpful.  TechMak ( talk ) 08:32, 17 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete , per my comment above.  Popo Dameron ⁠ talk 01:05, 12 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] continued comment I read somewhere that single event notability exists as well like WP:SINGLEEVENT for people but I can't find it now.  TechMak ( talk ) 08:48, 17 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Regardless of whether or not Preamble really discovered prompt injections, the coverage on the company is not enough to pass WP:NCORP .  Popo Dameron ⁠ talk 03:04, 18 April 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.

Discussion outcome: delete