Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Deep Knowledge Ventures


 * 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 no consensus.  Sandstein  11:36, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Deep Knowledge Ventures

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

I believe that the value of this VC is overvalued. No sources --Gruznov (talk) 08:22, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America1000 09:41, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. North America1000 09:41, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. North America1000 09:41, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

Delete. Just another investment firm. This one managed to create a buzz in 2014 by having some news outlets mention "A Venture Capital Firm Just Named An Algorithm To Its Board Of Directors". Smart marketing, but that's about it at this stage. This firm may become notable in the future, but does not make the cut now. Olivier (talk) 15:21, 2 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete - not notable. Article written by a bunch of SPAs with COI. Citobun (talk) 18:33, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
 * After digging a bit, I have found that there seems to be quite a web of SPA sockpuppets working on subjects related to the founder of this firm. User:Deepknowledgev, who worked on this article, also created the article Dmitry Kaminsky, which was deleted, recreated, deleted, recreated, and then deleted again. Then the article Dmitry Kaminskiy was created. Slightly different spelling but appears to be the same person, and is linked from Deep Knowledge Ventures? Not to mention the single-purpose accounts User:Biokhimik, User:Adyod, User:Georges Medawar, User:The dank tank. Seems like a web of COI self-promotion using sockpuppets to avoid scrutiny. Citobun (talk) 18:46, 2 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Weak keep and restore to an edition with external sources and rebuild the article. I noticed that this company continued to make financial news well into 2015 so I think it has just about enough persistent notability. Deryck C. 21:13, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I've reverted to the last clean version in the article with the reliable sources. Cunard (talk) 06:30, 3 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete for now at best as none of this suggests a better solidly notable article. SwisterTwister   talk  02:08, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

Keep per the significant coverage in reliable sources.  The article notes: "The existing structure of Deep Knowledge Ventures is already shrouded a bit in mystery—the company is led by Russian Dmitry Kamenskiy, who cofounded the Center for Biogerontology and Regenerative Medicine (VITAL analyzes only companies involved in regenerative medicine)—but the rest of the board consists of “five anonymous partners, all high net worth individuals from Hong Kong, Russia, and the UK,” according to Highland. She says that the board will only put money into companies that VITAL’s algorithm suggests are a good bet, which isn’t too different from any other company using some proprietary analysis software or equation to make decisions. ... So far, VITAL has helped the VC firm invest in two companies, including Baltimore’s InSilico Medicine. Alex Zhavoronkov, InSilico’s CEO, told me that he does not “talk” to VITAL, but that in his dealings with Deep Knowledge Ventures, the company has acted as though the algorithm is a real human."  The article notes: "A Hong Kong venture capital fund recently appointed a computer algorithm to its board of directors, claiming to be the first company of its kind to give a machine an 'equal vote' when it comes to investment decisions. The firm, Deep Knowledge Ventures (DKV), which invests in companies researching treatments for age-related diseases and regenerative medicine, uses the algorithm to analyze financing trends to make investment recommendations in the life sciences sector. 'We were attracted to a software tool that could in large part automate due diligence and use historical data-sets to uncover trends that are not immediately obvious to humans surveying topline data,' said DKV senior partner Dmitry Kaminskiy when the company announced the board 'appointment' in May."   The article notes: "A venture capital firm has appointed a computer algorithm to its board of directors. The program - called Vital - will vote on whether to invest in a specific company or not. The firm it will be working for - Deep Knowledge Ventures - focuses on drugs for age-related diseases. It said that Vital would make its recommendations by sifting through large amounts of data.  The algorithm looks at a range of data when making decisions - including financial information, clinical trials for particular drugs, intellectual property owned by the firm and previous funding.  According to Deep Knowledge Ventures, Vital has already approved two investment decisions." </li> <li> The article notes: "Earlier this year, Deep Knowledge Ventures a Hong Kong investment house, announced that it had appointed an algorithm to its board of directors. Given the same powers as the human board members, the piece of software weighs up financial and business decisions to assess investments in biotechnology and regenerative medicine that could be worth millions of dollars. The algorithm's strength, its creators claim, is its ability to automate the kind of due diligence and historical knowledge about trends that would be difficult for a mere person to spot."</li> <li> The article notes: "Vital (Validating Investment Tool for Advancing Life Sciences) will be working for medical company Deep Knowledge Ventures, which specialises in drugs for age-related diseases. It will sit as an 'equal member of its board of directors'. Deep Knowledge’s senior partner, Dmitry Kaminskiy, said: 'The prospect for utilising this approach in portfolio management is very attractive."</li> <li> The article notes: "Hong Kong based venture capital fund Deep Knowledge Ventures (DKV) “has appointed VITAL, a machine learning program capable of making investment recommendations in the life science sector, to its board.” ... We're not going there because there's a strong whiff of stunt and/or promotion about this, not least because Hong Kong law, as Thomson Reuters points out here, in Hong Kong “The board comprises all of the directors of the company” and “A director must normally be a natural person, except that a private company may have a body corporate as its director if the company is not a member of a listed group.” Unless VITAL is vastly more capable than described, it cannot be considered a “natural person”. So its “presence” on the board is cosmetic.  There's also the small matter of Directors' liabilities, which companies routinely insure against to to protect their Board members. Obtaining insurance for VITAL's pronouncements would be nigh-on impossible. Let's also ask what happens if VITAL is hacked: would that constitute the Directorial no-no of false and misleading communications? If VITAL crashed, would that constitute failure to disclose? Those questions come before we ponder whether VITAL has the ability to cast a vote, never mind raise its hand to show which way it has voted. A stunt then, albeit an unsettling one: software is on the march and often challenges human expertise. At a guess, VITAL is what previous generations of business intelligence hype called an executive information system, a tool that offers high-level analysis of a business beyond purely operational matters. It's grand that DKV has put such a tool in its Directors' hands, but this software is no more a Board member than Caligula's horse was a senator."</li> </ol>There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Deep Knowledge Ventures to pass Notability, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". Cunard (talk) 06:30, 3 January 2016 (UTC) </li></ul>
 * The Vice article provides substantial coverage about Deep Knowledge Ventures: that it was founded by Russian Dmitry Kamenskiy, "shrouded a bit in mystery", has a board of "five anonymous partners", and has invested in InSilico Medicine and a second company through Vital's help. The Register calls a Vital a "stunt" and explains in detail why. Although Vital is likely a stunt, it has given Deep Knowledge Ventures significant coverage in reputable publications, allowing it to pass Notability. The sources are from the United States (CNN, The New York Observer, Vice, and Business Insider) and the United Kingdom (BBC, Daily Mirror, The Register, and Wired UK). Although the sources are primarily about Vital, there is enough material about Deep Knowledge Ventures itself to establish notability. Cunard (talk) 06:30, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment. Wait. An investment company is using a computer to help make investment decisions AND it is "shrouded in mystery" and has five anonymous partners. Big deal! They managed to get into a few media and are now pushing really hard to have their name in Wikipedia, with the help of an army of sockpuppets. Let's remember WP:NOTSOAPBOX. Olivier (talk) 16:52, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Note. The article about its founder Dmitry Kaminsky has already been created and deleted 3 times since September 8, 2014. The lookalike Dmitry Kaminskiy has been created 3 times and deleted twice since November 11, 2015. It is now tagged for speedy deletion. Olivier (talk) 16:52, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I agree that Deep Knowledge Ventures' using a computer to sit on its board of directors to make investment decisions likely is a publicity ploy. But since BBC, Business Insider, CNN, the Daily Mirror, The New York Observer, The Register, Vice, and Wired UK consider that worth covering, per Notability, Wikipedia also should cover it. Retaining the article is not necessarily good for Deep Knowledge Ventures' reputation. Wikipedia can include the information from The Register article that reflects negatively on the firm's use of the computer Vital to make investment decisions: "a strong whiff of stunt and/or promotion about this, not least because Hong Kong law, as Thomson Reuters points out here, in Hong Kong “The board comprises all of the directors of the company” and “A director must normally be a natural person, except that a private company may have a body corporate as its director if the company is not a member of a listed group.”" Cunard (talk) 19:31, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment. The BBC article is essentially saying "The idea of the algorithm voting is a gimmick. It is not different from the algorithm making a suggestion and the board voting on it". Period. That's not exactly the "significant coverage" requested by WP:GNG. Olivier (talk) 09:33, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I listed BBC's "Algorithm appointed board director" article here to demonstrate that the Hong Kong company Deep Knowledge Ventures was the subject of an article by an international source. The article "addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content" (quoting from Notability. Two more detailed articles are from Vice and The Register, which provide significant coverage of the company and its motivation for having the computer Vital on its board of directors. Cunard (talk) 05:53, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment When the international source says: "we have a tiny article, but really there is nothing to say about it, it's just a spin", then it is a massive stretch to say that it addresses the topic in any detail. It just hints at savvy PR firms pushing material into media in order to justify a Wikipedia entry, which will further justify new articles. Let's not propagate an empty spin. WP:NOT. Olivier (talk) 10:22, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
 * The Vice and The Register have longer articles than the BBC's article and cover Deep Knowledge Ventures "directly and in detail". WP:NOT says: "[C]ontent hosted in Wikipedia is not for: 1. Advocacy, propaganda, or recruitment of any kind: commercial, political, scientific, religious, national, sports-related, or otherwise. An article can report objectively about such things, as long as an attempt is made to describe the topic from a neutral point of view." This Wikipedia article "can report objectively" about "advocacy" "as long as an attempt is made to describe the topic from a neutral point of view". It is possible to accomplish this with sources like The Register. I have incorporated The Register's content into the article: "Simon Sharwood of The Register said there is 'a strong whiff of stunt and/or promotion about this'. Quoting Thomson Reuters, Sharwood noted that 'the board comprises all of the directors of the company” and 'A director must normally be a natural person, except that a private company may have a body corporate as its director if the company is not a member of a listed group.' He said that VITAL cannot be a 'natural person' so it is merely a 'cosmetic' appointment to the board. Sharwood further argued that corporations frequently purchase directors and officers liability insurance to indemnify them but that it would be improbable to get such insurance for VITAL. Sharwood wrote that were VITAL to be hacked, any misinformation it outputs could be considered 'false and misleading communications'." Cunard (talk) 06:15, 9 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Comment. You have conveniently selected one out of the 5 points of WP:NOT that is not applicable in the case here. The following two are relevant. Wikipedia is not for:
 * 4. Self-promotion
 * 5. Advertising, marketing or public relations
 * Where are all the sockpuppets gone? 17:08, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
 * The article cannot be considered advertising with the inclusion of reliably sourced negative material about the subject. Cunard (talk) 01:03, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Nothing really negative there. The new paragraph simply says that the company is quite aggressive at marketing itself... which it is, indeed! Olivier (talk) 08:46, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Deep Knowledge Ventures wants readers to think that it added the robot VITAL to its board because VITAL actually makes decisions for it. The paragraph is negative because it disputes Deep Knowledge Ventures' story, calling it "a strong whiff of stunt and/or promotion", which puts the company in an unflattering light. It means the story is no longer about VITAL but about the stunt. The company's statements will receive more scrutiny in the future, and people more will be more predisposed to dismissing their seemingly surprising announcements as merely stunts/promotion. With the critical commentary from The Register, the article can no longer be considered promotional for the company. Cunard (talk) 07:03, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

<div class="xfd_relist" style="border-top: 1px solid #AAA; border-bottom: 1px solid #AAA; padding: 0px 25px;"> Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Seraphimblade Talk to me 23:52, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
 * All publications in the media in some way connected with a funny story about a robot among the members of the Board of Directors. It's all. No one else wrote anything about the activities of the DKV, its transactions and companies. This is a direct indication of the significance of this fund. --Gruznov (talk) 18:47, 13 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep – Meets WP:CORPDEPTH:, , , , , , . North America1000 04:37, 17 January 2016 (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.