233:
This article does not seem to be supported by much. 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
496:
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
518:
Yes you may be right but do you have any lead on who invented it before them? On
Knowledge (XXG) if someone invented or founded something that is surely considered notable but if you can demonstrate that it would be helpful.
202:
382:. 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
159:
273:
269:
196:
389:
317:
265:
234:"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).
91:
472:
Prompt injections are definitely not irrelevant, but I'm not personally convinced that
Preamble's part in discovering the attack is enough for notability.
106:
261:
456:? 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? --
343:, 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.
132:
127:
392:
86:
79:
17:
386:
136:
348:
217:
119:
396:
593:
Regardless of whether or not
Preamble really discovered prompt injections, the coverage on the company is not enough to pass
184:
100:
96:
633:
40:
416:? I looked at all of them and in my opinion, none. But, I am wiling to discuss in case there is something I missed. --
163:
344:
361:
Respectable call on the decline. I did some digging on "prompt injection attacks" and it was a vulnerability with
178:
383:
575:
174:
340:
616:
587:
565:
528:
513:
491:
465:
447:
425:
407:
374:
352:
326:
310:
288:
253:
61:
123:
629:
611:
560:
486:
224:
36:
365:
which is now irrelevant. Press mentions of them finding it but nothing in-depth to show notability. --
453:
413:
298:
115:
67:
210:
238:
461:
421:
370:
306:
594:
583:
524:
443:
403:
190:
75:
29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
628:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
438:
that's why I shared these articles so you can see that its not irrelevant and still exists.
339:
nomination here, since there's a plausible claim of significance – that this firm discovered
35:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
598:
547:
473:
57:
336:
509:
321:
284:
249:
457:
417:
366:
302:
579:
520:
439:
399:
153:
53:
503:
278:
243:
452:
My questions is very specific. Which of the references you presented meets
501:
prior to May 2022 (a claim which is almost risible in and of itself).
237:
I could not find any additional sources for this article by doing a
574:
I read somewhere that single event notability exists as well like
433:
362:
624:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
149:
145:
141:
209:
412:
Which of these five references meets the criteria of
223:
43:). No further edits should be made to this page.
636:). No further edits should be made to this page.
316:Note: This discussion has been included in the
260:Note: This discussion has been included in the
318:list of Software-related deletion discussions
8:
107:Help, my article got nominated for deletion!
315:
259:
297:- There is absolutely nothing that meets
18:Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion
7:
578:for people but I can't find it now.
24:
264:lists for the following topics:
92:Introduction to deletion process
1:
432:it was a vulnerability with
82:(AfD)? Read these primers!
653:
617:03:04, 18 April 2023 (UTC)
588:08:48, 17 April 2023 (UTC)
566:01:05, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
529:08:32, 17 April 2023 (UTC)
514:21:13, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
492:20:47, 11 April 2023 (UTC)
466:03:09, 18 April 2023 (UTC)
448:08:30, 17 April 2023 (UTC)
426:20:46, 11 April 2023 (UTC)
408:15:20, 11 April 2023 (UTC)
375:20:14, 10 April 2023 (UTC)
353:09:38, 10 April 2023 (UTC)
327:09:14, 10 April 2023 (UTC)
311:09:05, 10 April 2023 (UTC)
289:08:55, 10 April 2023 (UTC)
254:08:55, 10 April 2023 (UTC)
62:03:43, 18 April 2023 (UTC)
626:Please do not modify it.
546:, per my comment above.
436:which is now irrelevant,
341:prompt injection attacks
32:Please do not modify it.
164:edits since nomination
345:Justlettersandnumbers
80:Articles for deletion
335:: I've declined an
572:continued comment
329:
291:
97:Guide to deletion
87:How to contribute
644:
614:
608:
603:
563:
557:
552:
489:
483:
478:
324:
262:deletion sorting
228:
227:
213:
157:
139:
77:
34:
652:
651:
647:
646:
645:
643:
642:
641:
640:
634:deletion review
612:
604:
599:
561:
553:
548:
499:nobody did this
487:
479:
474:
322:
170:
130:
114:
111:
74:
71:
48:The result was
41:deletion review
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
650:
648:
639:
638:
620:
619:
576:WP:SINGLEEVENT
569:
568:
540:
539:
538:
537:
536:
535:
534:
533:
532:
531:
494:
470:
469:
468:
450:
356:
355:
330:
313:
292:
231:
230:
167:
116:Preamble, Inc.
110:
109:
104:
94:
89:
72:
70:
68:Preamble, Inc.
65:
46:
45:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
649:
637:
635:
631:
627:
622:
621:
618:
615:
609:
607:
602:
596:
592:
591:
590:
589:
585:
581:
577:
573:
567:
564:
558:
556:
551:
545:
542:
541:
530:
526:
522:
517:
516:
515:
512:
511:
506:
505:
500:
495:
493:
490:
484:
482:
477:
471:
467:
463:
459:
455:
451:
449:
445:
441:
437:
435:
429:
428:
427:
423:
419:
415:
411:
410:
409:
405:
401:
398:
394:
391:
388:
385:
381:
378:
377:
376:
372:
368:
364:
360:
359:
358:
357:
354:
350:
346:
342:
338:
334:
331:
328:
325:
319:
314:
312:
308:
304:
300:
296:
293:
290:
287:
286:
281:
280:
275:
271:
267:
263:
258:
257:
256:
255:
252:
251:
246:
245:
240:
235:
226:
222:
219:
216:
212:
208:
204:
201:
198:
195:
192:
189:
186:
183:
180:
176:
173:
172:Find sources:
168:
165:
161:
155:
151:
147:
143:
138:
134:
129:
125:
121:
117:
113:
112:
108:
105:
102:
98:
95:
93:
90:
88:
85:
84:
83:
81:
76:
69:
66:
64:
63:
59:
55:
51:
44:
42:
38:
33:
27:
26:
19:
625:
623:
605:
600:
571:
570:
554:
549:
543:
508:
502:
498:
480:
475:
431:
379:
332:
294:
283:
277:
248:
242:
236:
232:
220:
214:
206:
199:
193:
187:
181:
171:
73:
49:
47:
31:
28:
197:free images
454:WP:ORGCRIT
414:WP:ORGCRIT
393:techcrunch
299:WP:ORGCRIT
630:talk page
430:You said
323:Spiderone
274:Computing
270:Companies
239:WP:BEFORE
37:talk page
632:or in a
595:WP:NCORP
458:CNMall41
418:CNMall41
367:CNMall41
303:CNMall41
266:Business
241:search.
160:View log
101:glossary
39:or in a
606:Dameron
580:TechMak
555:Dameron
521:TechMak
481:Dameron
440:TechMak
400:TechMak
380:Comment
333:Comment
272:, and
203:WP refs
191:scholar
133:protect
128:history
78:New to
544:Delete
295:Delete
175:Google
137:delete
50:delete
434:GPT-3
363:GPT-3
218:JSTOR
179:books
154:views
146:watch
142:links
54:Aoidh
16:<
613:talk
601:Popo
584:talk
562:talk
550:Popo
525:talk
488:talk
476:Popo
462:talk
444:talk
422:talk
404:talk
395:and
371:talk
349:talk
307:talk
301:. --
211:FENS
185:news
150:logs
124:talk
120:edit
58:talk
225:TWL
158:– (
597:.
586:)
527:)
504:jp
464:)
446:)
424:)
406:)
373:)
351:)
337:A7
320:.
309:)
279:jp
276:.
268:,
244:jp
205:)
162:|
152:|
148:|
144:|
140:|
135:|
131:|
126:|
122:|
60:)
52:.
610:
582:(
559:
523:(
510:g
507:×
485:
460:(
442:(
420:(
402:(
397:5
390:3
387:2
384:1
369:(
347:(
305:(
285:g
282:×
250:g
247:×
229:)
221:·
215:·
207:·
200:·
194:·
188:·
182:·
177:(
169:(
166:)
156:)
118:(
103:)
99:(
56:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.