Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Audacious Inquiry


 * 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 Weak Keep. Editors did establish article's notability within their field, but there should be no prejudice to a second nomination a year from now. (non-admin closure) &#8213; MJL -Talk-☖  22:00, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

Audacious Inquiry

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )
 * Article version nominated for deletion &rarr; https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Audacious_Inquiry&oldid=878321113
 * Article version nominated for deletion &rarr; https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Audacious_Inquiry&oldid=878321113

Does not meet WP:NORG, all coverage appears to either be routine business press (hirings and firings, fundraising, etc.), interviews with executives, or press releases from the company (albeit published in many different publications). signed,Rosguill talk 04:33, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 05:55, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 05:55, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 05:55, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 05:55, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Maryland-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 05:55, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

09:29, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete - Routine coverage (general announcements), press releases, and brief mentions. Falls short of WP:CORPDEPTH. --CNMall41 (talk) 06:06, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep - Among press, the Modern Healthcare article mentions that the subject company built the PULSE software which is also the subject of the story in Wired. Both are national and significant publications.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.85.56.242 (talk) 14:36, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Having reviewed the sources just added to the article, I stand by my earlier assessment. All coverage in RS is mere-mentions either attesting briefly to the company's involvement in an event or citing the company's spokespersons' opinions on a topic. I have yet to see any article which addresses the subject in detail. signed,Rosguill talk 23:38, 14 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep - Thank you for the feedback. Added Inc. Magazine profile on the subject as a reference, which speaks to the subject as part of the Inc. "hall of fame." The other RS examples illustrate the work of the company and the significance of that work. (e.g. Pew Research Center report, Florida government source)  The David Raths profile (reference 3) is also in depth on the subject.  Thank you for considering.  signed,Flaco c (talk) 00:49, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Regarding citation #3, Healthcare Informatics doesn't list any editorial information and looks to me like a PR site, which would mean that it is not a reliable source. Additionally, inclusion in the Inc. hall of fame does not contribute toward notability per the section "Examples of trivial coverage" in WP:NORG Examples of trivial coverage that do not count toward meeting the significant coverage requirement [include]...inclusion in lists of similar organizations, particularly in "best of", "top 100", "fastest growing" or similar lists. Regarding minimal coverage in RS (Pew, etc.), please see WP:ORGCRITE for guidelines as to when an article contributes toward notability for a company. signed,Rosguill talk 02:31, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
 * thank you. Shouldn't the Florida state government agency announcement (pdf) about the subject, the subject's service, and the service users qualify as a RS? (Independent, secondary, significant, reliable). Healthcare informatics editorial board is found here: https://www.healthcare-informatics.com/page/editorial-board  It is a reputable publication in healthcare IT - with substantial readership...  (fwiw)  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cdbrandt (talk • contribs) 03:50, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Added one additional source, a profile of the subject by technically media, a regional news outlet. I believe that the Baltimore Sun article, technically article, and healthcare informatics profile each provide substantial coverage of the subject and would seemingly qualify as verifiable, independent, reliable, secondary sources. In sum, the multiple threshold for WP:NORG should be met, with these additions.  Thank you for the feedback and consideration. signed,Flaco c (talk) 14:52, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jovanmilic97 (talk) 10:21, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete Promotionalarticle, with referneces based on PR, and local news stories. No indication of general importance, at least at present.  DGG ( talk ) 03:59, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep First, thank you for the opportunity to learn more about WP's policies on article deletion and notability. I've been educating myself on the process, but am still a newbie at this aspect of WP's process. Second, let me put out there some personal biases: I've worked with Audacious Inquiry and oversaw some of their work on health information exchange in Maryland. I know the leadership team. I've not worked for them directly and have no personal skin in the question of deleting this article. I have a good sense of why this article is being considered for deletion as there are questions about the significance of the organization and its contributions to date. More importantly, it is difficult to determine the substance and reliability of the references cited. As an informatics professional focused on health information exchange, when I speak professionally I often cite Ai's Encounter Notification Service as one of the most substantial technical advances in our field in terms of its practical impact on patient outcomes. But we are challenged with a disconnect between what appears in scholarly articles, which may cite the value of encounter notifications, and the business articles which mention the companies developing the solutions but don't have the same perceived reliability. Informatics is an emerging field and, like other esoteric domains, it is hard to distinguish reliable sources from PR-driven sources. Healthcare Informatics is the closest journalistic outlet we have to an industry-focused publication with an independent staff and publication board. Would it be helpful to cite scholarly publications that discuss encounter notifications in regions where Ai's technology and services are used even if Ai isn't specifically mentioned? Rmartinmd (talk) 17:34, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Keep The company is an established, going concern and recognized as such by numerous, non-promotional secondary sources, including Inc, Wired and a local daily newspaper. Any primary, owned channels cited are ancillary to meeting the larger NORG notability criteria. BMuys

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 11:09, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Added Bloomberg profile as a source / reference. Added a 2013 "business insider" article as an ancillary source. (subject is one of nine companies profiled.) Thanks for continued feedback. Flaco c (talk) 14:45, 28 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Notability established — There's sufficient material to support notability, though a substantial proportion of the sources are incidental mentions. Also, there has been the propensity for an author to not use the title of a cited piece but rather use some interpretation of how the source supports the article as the title.  This is not the right way to source information, and I've revised some if not most of these; there are still citations I've not revised remaining which need review and revision. --User:Ceyockey ( talk to me ) 16:33, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Hi, can you perhaps link here to two references that you believe meet the criteria for establishing notability? I have looked at the various sources in the article and I'm not convinced but perhaps I'm missing something. Thank you.  HighKing++ 16:33, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep Audacious Inquiry is obviously a notable company in their field. Editor-1 (talk) 13:14, 3 February 2019 (UTC)


 * 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.