Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Deep Knowledge Ventures (2nd nomination)


 * 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 redirect to VITAL (machine learning software). The actual consensus is pretty strongly for deletion without redirect. However, because parts of this article have been merged to VITAL (machine learning software) while the AfD has been running, this article must be redirected rather than deleted in order to preserve the attribution. Since VITAL is now itself at AfD, the result of that AfD will effectively determine the true outcome of this one. &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 14:25, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

Deep Knowledge Ventures
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

I renominate the article for deletion after a "no consensus". The article does not meet WP:NCORP guideline which has recently become considerably more restrictive about which sources are considered usable to show notability. Furthermore the article does not follow the criteria for establishing notability published by the Private Equity WikiProject Task Force. Ms4263nyu (talk) 14:14, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Ms4263nyu: You’ve nominated the talk page, not the article... —Tom Morris (talk) 15:10, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Tom Morris Ops! My apologies. Thanks to Serial Number 54129 for moving the page. Ms4263nyu (talk) 15:33, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. Ms4263nyu (talk) 14:14, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 15:13, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 15:13, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 15:13, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

The article fails to establish why this venture capital is notable, nor can I find any sources that can verify if it is a real firm (eg. address, phone number). In addition, I am unable to locate any significant or substantial coverage with in-depth information on the firm and containing independent content. I have identified only cases of dependent or trivial coverage not sufficiente to establish notability.

Here's my assessment of the reliable sources:

I do not have direct experience with private equity or venture capitals so members of the Private Equity WikiProject Task Force might help answer their own questions for establishing notability: 1) Has this firm or investor completed any notable investments? 2) Is this an "emerging manager"? 3) How much capital does this firm / investor manage? 4) Does a firm / investor have an institutional investor base? Thanks! Ms4263nyu (talk) 20:52, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

 Keep per the significant coverage in reliable sources. Additional sources provided at this AfD     </li> <li></li> <li></li> <li></li> <li></li> <li></li> <li></li> <li></li> </ol> Sources provided at Articles for deletion/Deep Knowledge Ventures <ol> <li></li> <li></li> <li></li> <li></li> <li></li> <li></li> <li></li> <li></li> </ol>

Additional sources provided at this AfD <ol> <li> The article notes: "Since the end of March, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has been trumpeting a study by the little-known “Deep Knowledge Group” that claims Israel is the safest country in the world in the fight against the coronavirus pandemic. Amid repeated efforts by journalists, scientists, politicians and concerned social media users to question and even debunk the study, Netanyahu has continued to cite it on prime-time television as well as on his official website and social media feed. Not only does the study fail to reveal the data or methodology it used, but the people behind it also have strikingly unusual career histories. The Times of Israel has dug further into the founders of the “Deep Knowledge Group” and discovered a San Francisco-based medical expert with an extraordinary resumé who reportedly has run a firm offering private intelligence services to foreign governments; a failed Russian banker who advises the Moldovan president on the economy; and a bizarre Russian movement to prolong the human lifespan. ... The Times of Israel published an article on April 8 revealing that Deep Knowledge Group was a Hong Kong investment capital firm owned by a Moscow- and London-based businessman named Dmitry Kaminskiy with business interests in the fintech, blockchain and “longevity” industries. In mid-2015, Kaminskiy bought the Russian “Interactive Bank” and announced in interviews in the Russian media that he would invest $1 billion in the bank to make it the best in the world using artificial intelligence technology. A year later, the bank was bankrupt and its license had been revoked. Days later, Prof Yitzhak Ben-Israel, head of the Security Studies program in Tel Aviv University, derided (Hebrew link) the site’s findings as “the mother of fake news,” stressing that the rankings were not formal, official or credible."</li> <li> The book notes: "Deep Knowledge Ventures On 13 May 2014, a press release from Deep Knowledge Ventures, a Hong Kong-based venture capital fund specializing in biotechnology, age-related disease drugs and regenerative medicine projects, announced that it ‘formally acknowledges VITAL, a crucial Artificial Intelligence instrument for investment decision-making, as an equal member of its Board of Directors’. VITAL was the product of Aging Analytics UK, a provider of health-sector market intelligence to pension funds, insurers and governments. Developed by ‘a team of programmers, several of which have theoretical physics backgrounds’, the system ‘uses machine learning to analyze financing trends in a database of life science companies and predict successful investments’. VITAL 1.0 was a ‘basic algorithm’, but the goal was ‘through iterative releases and updates ... to create a piece of software that is capable of making autonomous investment decisions’ (Fontaine 2014). Apparently, however, Deep Knowledge Ventures thought VITAL was already pretty good: it told reporters the program would ‘vote on whether to invest in a specific company or not’ (BBC 2014). All this sounded very futuristic. As commentators quickly pointed out, however, it was really ‘publicity hype’ (BBC 2014). This was not because decision-making algorithms are impossible, but, on the contrary, because their use, often in forms far more complex than VITAL, is commonplace in today’s capitalism. Such programs are, for example, central to the operations of the financial sector, whose high-speed multi-billion trades are entirely dependent on algorithms – and whose bad decisions brought the world economy to its knees in the great Wall Street crash of 2008. The press release was a stunt because the future to which it seemed to point exists now. ... The same-day news of the algorithmic boss-entity and the mine disaster was coincidence. Yet it condenses paradoxes and contradictions central to this book. For a start, it starkly highlights the coexistence within contemporary capitalism of extraordinary high-technologies and workers who live and die in brutal conditions often imagined to belong in some antediluvian past. This coexistence is also a connection. Mines and artificial intelligences seem to belong to different worlds, but they are strongly linked. Although only a small part of production at Soma went to power plants, similar coal mines around the planet provide – at appalling, biosphere-endangering environmental cost – the basic energy source on which all digital technologies depend: electricity."</li> <li> The article notes: "In May 2014 Deep Knowledge Ventures – a Hong Kong venture-capital firm specialising in regenerative medicine – broke new ground by appointing an algorithm called VITAL to its board. VITAL makes investment recommendations by analysing huge amounts of data on the financial situation, clinical trials and intellectual property of prospective companies. Like the other five board members, the algorithm gets to vote on whether the firm makes an investment in a specific company or not. Examining VITAL’s record so far, it seems that it has already picked up one managerial vice: nepotism. It has recommended investing in companies that grant algorithms more authority. With VITAL’s blessing, Deep Knowledge Ventures has recently invested in Silico Medicine, which develops computer-assisted methods for drug research, and in Pathway Pharmaceuticals, which employs a platform called OncoFinder to select and rate personalised cancer therapies."</li> <li> The book notes: Back in 2014, the media reported that Deep Knowledge Ventures, a Hong Kong-based venture capital firm, had appointed an algorithm named Vital (Validating Investment Tool for Advancing Life Sciences) to its board of directors. According to these reports, the algorithm was given the right to "vote on whether the firm makes an investment in a specific company or not", just like the other—human—members of the board. Vital was appointed because of its ability to "automate due diligence and use historical datasets to uncover trends that are not immediately obvious to humans surveying top-line data". For instance, Vital helped to approve two investment decisions, namely those to fund Insilico Medicine, an enterprise which develops computer-assisted methods for drug discovery in aging research, and Pathway Pharmaceuticals, which selects and rates personalized cancer therapies on the basis of a platform technology. Despite this impressive track record, Vital admittedly was not yet artificially intelligent in the proper sense. In fact, the algorithm will soon have to retire, since a much more intelligent Vital 2.0 is due to be launched in the near future. Moreover, Vital was initially not granted an equal vote on all financial decisions made by the company. Legally speaking, it has not even acquired the status of corporate director under the corporate laws of Hong Kong. It is simply treated as "a member of [the] board with observer status" by its fellow (human) directors. Nevertheless, Vital has been acknowledged as the "world's first artificial intelligence company director".</li> <li> The article notes: "A woman by the name of Margaretta Colangelo who wrote a blog post that appeared in Forbes’ blog section. Colangelo is the co-founder of Deep Knowledge Group, a small unknown venture capital firm based in Hong Kong that Itzik Ben-Israel, a retired IDF general and chairman of the Israel Space Agency, called the mother of fake news. ... This wasn’t the first time that Netanyahu shared research by Deep Knowledge Group. In the beginning of April, Netanyahu shared a chart claiming that Israel conducts more coronavirus tests per capita than any other country. The problem is that the chart referred to a short snapshot in time, and that in reality, as everyone in Israel knows, the country has consistently failed to scale up its testing due to poor management, lack of materials, and a failure to recognize early on in the crisis that tests are an essential tool needed to get the country back to work (we will get back to that below)."</li> <li> The article notes: "On April 1, he cited a dubious survey published by the Deep Knowledge Group — a largely unknown Hong Kong-based investment capital company — that ranked Israel as the safest country in terms of the coronavirus."</li> <li> The article notes: "早在 2014 年，人工智能对公司法的挑战已隐隐若现. 研究生物科技与再生医学的英国公司 Aging Analytics 于 2014 年 5 月宣布，启用一款名为 VITAL(Validating Investment Tool for Advancing Life Sciences)的人工智能工具，并授权香港的风投公司 Deep Knowledge Ventures 将该人工智能用作 该公司的投资委员. 在被记者问及为何采用这一人工智能时，Deep Knowledge Venture 的高级合伙人卡明斯基(Kaminskiy)称，人会受情感左右，有主观情绪，会犯错误，但 VITAL 这样的机器只会用逻 辑思维，不可能因为一时意气出错. 人类投资者的直觉和机器的逻辑性相结合，会打造一支完美的 团队，将错误的风险降低到最小. 〔1〕VITAL 入场后，已经帮助公司批准了两项投资:一个是在抗衰老 医药领域开发计算机辅助方法的 Silico Medicine，另一个是使用选择个人化抗癌治疗方法的 Pathway Pharmaceuticals. Aging Analytics 公司声称，VITAL 在投资委员会和其他委员是平等的. 事实上， VITAL 在当时虽然冠以“投资委员”之名，但实际上并非对任何的投资都享有跟其他委员同等的表决 权. 而且，根据香港公司法的规定，VITAL 也无法获得“董事”地位. 因此，Aging Analytics 公司的其 他委员认为，将之视为投资委员会的“观察员(observer)”可能更为适当. VITAL 的出现，实质上引出一个更深层次的问题:公司法与人工智能的相遇将会擦出何种火花? VITAL 可能被视为公司的董事，也可能被视为公司董事决策的辅助(即观察员)，但不管是哪一种情 形，均会导致公司法语境的一连串追问:如果 VITAL 被视为董事，则传统公司法关于董事的相关规 则(比如董事义务规则)是否仍然适用?如果不能适用，应当如何重构?如若 VITAL 不被视为董事， 而仅仅是被视为董事决策的辅助手段，则这种辅助性工具是否也受到公司法的规约?如董事因听信 VITAL 所作出的决策导致公司利益受损，VITAL 本身是否应当承担责任?无生命无感情之 VITAL 又该承担何种责任，才能与其行为与身份相匹配?凡此种种，无疑均会对公司法造成挑战与冲击."</li> <li> The article notes: "epuis le 13 mai 2014, il est le sixième membre du conseil d’administration de la société hongkongaise Deep knowledge ventures, ou DKV. Il n’a pas besoin de porter cravate et costume de grand ponte. Il s’appelle Vital, d’un acronyme que les autres têtes d’œuf du conseil ont sans doute oublié mais qui en dit beaucoup sur le sens de sa présence au sommet de cette entreprise de capital-risque des secteurs de la lutte contre le cancer, la médecine régénérative et les traitements personnalisés : « Outil de validation pour les investissements dans la recherche scientifique » . Vital n’a pas le physique de l’emploi : c’est un algorithme. Plus aucune décision d’investissement, néanmoins, n’est aujourd’hui prise par DKV sans qu’il n’ait voix au chapitre. Car le robot, pour peu qu’on le nomme ainsi comme l’ont fait la plupart des journalistes ayant chanté sa finesse d’analyse autant que sa puissance de calcul, est un incorruptible. Sa promotion, son crédit au sein du pool de décideurs de Deep knowledge ventures, il les doit à sa neutralité. À la rigueur toute mathématique de ses avis sur les sociétés candidates à la manne financière. Mais cette absence de subjectivité n’est-elle pas un leurre ? Même autonome dans l’exercice quotidien de sa mission, une machine programmée par des humains peut-elle être considérée comme neutre ? Et infaillible ? Car Vital pourrait se tromper et soutenir un investissement nuisible. Et si cet algorithme réussissait un jour à convaincre les cinq autres membres de son conseil d’administration d’investir dans une startup se présentant de façon crédible comme spécialisée dans la lutte contre le vieillissement, mais dirigée en sous-main par une bande de djihadistes cherchant des fonds pour l’immortel Allah ? Vital pourrait-il être tenu pour responsable de l’erreur de casting ? Faudrait-il incriminer la société DKV, juridiquement propriétaire de ce logiciel ô combien supérieur ? Ou ses prestataires et leurs sources d’information ? Ou bien se retourner contre le concepteur de Vital, cette mécanique qu’on croyait pourtant si intelligente?"</li> <li> The article notes: "'Vital' es el nombre del robot que hace parte de la junta directiva de la japonesa Deep Knowledge Ventures, una empresa de gestión de fondos de inversión localizada en Hong Kong y que se especializa en inversiones de proyectos de biotecnología a mediano y largo plazo. Se trata básicamente de un software con la capacidad para analizar tendencias en las bases de datos de compañías relacionadas con ciencia y con ello predecir inversiones exitosas. Su nombre proviene de 'validating investment tool for advancing life sciences' que traducido al español significa 'herramienta validadora de inversión para el avance de las ciencias de la vida' y fue diseñado por la compañía británica Aging Analytics, que se dedica a llevar a cabo investigaciones en el campo de la biotecnología y la medicina regenerativa. La organización anunció que Vital ya ha realizado dos predicciones exitosas. Aunque hasta ahora no ha tenido voto, el robot ya ayudó a aprobar las inversiones hechas en la compañía Silico Medicine que desarrolla métodos por computadora para descubrir fármacos en el campo del envejecimiento. La segunda inversión fue hecha en la firma Pathway Pharmaceuticals que usa una plataforma llamada OncoFinder para seleccionar y calificar terapias personalizadas contra el cáncer."</li> <li> The article notes: "Hong Kong-based investment firm Deep Knowledge Ventures made headlines in 2014 by appointing a computer algorithm to its corporate board. The firm, which has about 100 million euros under management, wanted a way to enforce a data-driven approach to investing, rather than relying on human intuition and personal interactions with founders. Managing partner Dmitry Kaminskiy says the algorithm served mostly as a veto mechanism—if it spotted red flags, Deep Knowledge wouldn’t invest. In the five years since Deep Knowledge’s A.I. got its board seat, there hasn’t exactly been a stampede of companies following suit. In fact, Deep Knowledge itself shifted focus and no longer uses the algorithm. “Today, big strategy decisions are based on intuition”—that is to say, by humans—“because we have a data shortage,” says Brian Uzzi, a professor at Northwestern University’s Kellogg School of Management. Firms simply don’t make enough of these major decisions to train an algorithm effectively."</li> <li> The article notes: "DKV started as a traditional biotechnology fund, with a team of advisers and analysts using traditional methods for trend analysis and due diligence. But the biotech sector has a very high failure rate, with around 96% of drugs not successfully completing clinical trials. ... DKV then acquired a team of specialists in the analysis of big data -- large data sets that can be analyzed by computers to reveal patterns. The team created Vital, the first artificial intelligence system for biotech investment analysis, enabling the fund to identify more than 50 parameters that were critical for assessing risk factors. ... Vital showed that the probability of success was higher in the longevity subsector, which seeks to combat the effects of ageing, than in most other biotech subsectors. ... DKV is currently working on Vital 2.0, which will be launched in the second half of 2017. Kaminskiy said the new system will have a much higher IQ due to increases in the quality of data available and further diversification of data sources. Vital 2.0 will integrate data from scientific literature, grants, patent applications, clinical trials and even the biographies of individual team members of companies in which DKV is interested." The article includes quotes from Dmitry Kaminskiy, managing partner of Deep Knowledge Ventures.</li> </ol> Sources provided at Articles for deletion/Deep Knowledge Ventures <ol> <li> 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."</li> <li> 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."</li> <li></li> <li> 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></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) 00:28, 20 April 2020 (UTC)</li></ul>
 * The Times of Israel published an in-depth critical review of Deep Knowledge Ventures, saying it was "little-known" and "the people behind it also have strikingly unusual career histories". The article says Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu "has been trumpeting" Deep Knowledge Venture's study that "claims Israel is the safest country in the world in the fight against the coronavirus pandemic". The article says "the study fail to reveal the data or methodology it used". It provides detailed background about the "subsidiaries or sister companies of Deep Knowledge Group, or startups or nonprofits that have been beneficiaries of its largesse". The article also discusses information published in the Russian magazine Expert about Deep Knowledge Ventures. Yaakov Katz, the editor-in-chief of The Jerusalem Post said Deep Knowledge Ventures is a "small unknown venture capital firm based in Hong Kong that Itzik Ben-Israel, a retired IDF general and chairman of the Israel Space Agency, called the mother of fake news". The Times of Israel added that Itzik Ben-Israel found the coronavirus rankings "not formal, official or credible". Deep Knowledge Ventures appointed VITAL to its board of directors in 2014. This received significant coverage in the Vice, CNN, BBC, El Espectador, The New York Observer, Wired, the Daily Mirror and The Register in 2014. Reliable sources have continued to cover Deep Knowledge Ventures' work on VITAL. It received significant coverage in the 2015 Pluto Press book Cyber-proletariat: Global Labour in the Digital Vortex, the 2017 Harper book Homo Deus: A Brief History of Tomorrow, and the 2018 Edward Elgar Publishing book Research Handbook on the Law of Artificial Intelligence. It also received significant coverage in Multitudes (2015), The Nikkei (2017), 华东政法大学学报 (a journal available through CNKI) (2018), and Fortune (2019). The sources provide critical analysis about Deep Knowledge's work on VITAL. The Harper book notes, "Examining VITAL’s record so far, it seems that it has already picked up one managerial vice: nepotism." The Pluto Press book notes, "The press release was a stunt because the future to which it seemed to point exists now". The BBC article quotes University of Sheffield Professor Noel Sharkey, who said, "On first sight, it looks like a futuristic idea but on reflection it is really a little bit of publicity hype." 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. Fortune said, "In the five years since Deep Knowledge's A.I. got its board seat, there hasn't exactly been a stampede of companies following suit." Cunard (talk) 00:28, 20 April 2020 (UTC)


 * Cunard Thanks for this list of sources, but those links included haven't been included in Deep Knowledge Ventures after the first AfD nomination. Furthermore are those sources significant? Trivial or incidental coverage of a subject is not sufficient to establish notability WP:CORPDEPTH. Those sources you listed do not provide significant and substantial coverage with in-depth financial information about a Venture Capital. The article itself fails to establish why this venture capital is notable. Furthermore, the article is inappropriate or insufficient for a stand-alone article. Wikipedia is not WP:NOTNEWS WP:PLOT. Please, see also my comment below on WP:NCORP. Ms4263nyu (talk) 07:14, 20 April 2020 (UTC)


 * Pinging Articles for deletion/Deep Knowledge Ventures participants:, , , , and . Cunard (talk) 00:28, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep based on the controversy over the company being itself notable. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:47, 20 April 2020 (UTC)


 * Comment WP:NCORP and not WP:GNG is the accepted standard that editors should follow for establishing the notability of a compan . The new guideline has become considerably more restrictive about which sources are considered usable to show notability. Here how to apply the new criteria.


 * Can anyone provide the address, phone number of this venture capital? I find intriguing their website doesn't even reveal where they live, as the The Times of Israel notices the only evidence of the existence of this venture capital is a LinkedIn page.


 * The funder of the DKV, Dmitry Kaminskiy, might pass WP:BIO using the sources mentioned by Cunard. The article for a VC should respect this model otherwise WP:TNT Ms4263nyu (talk) 06:38, 20 April 2020 (UTC)


 * Delete and WP:TNT. Based on the sources provided by Cunard this fails WP:GNG, WP:ORGIN, and WP:INHERITORG. This is not an actual Venture Capital Firm, especially based on the Private Equity Capital model that has provided.  This seems to be a shady outfit of some sort of a so-far undefined nature.  After sifting through some of these sources, this Wikipedia article appears to be an inaccurate characterization of this company.


 * This is more like WP:SPAM. Additionally, as has been shown above, apparently the references in the article do not support notability for this topic. Also, based on the questions posed above by Ms4263nyu, this does not fit the criteria as a VC firm, criteria delineated by the Private Equity WikiProject Task Force. Therefore delete this, and if someone wants to write a different article that is an accurate characterization, and show that this is an actual company, that is the route we should go. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 03:55, 23 April 2020 (UTC)


 * Comment: I rewrote the article. Here is the lead: "Deep Knowledge Ventures is a venture capital firm based in Hong Kong. It funds companies that make treatments for aging-associated diseases and regenerative medicine. The company received international attention for its appointment of the computer algorithm VITAL (which stands for Validating Investment Tool for Advancing Life Sciences) to its board of directors in 2014. VITAL was called the 'world's first artificial intelligence company director'.1 VITAL's appointment raised controversy with critics calling it a stunt and saying that as VITAL was a natural person, it could not be a board member under Hong Kong's corporate governance laws. Deep Knowledge Group published a series of studies in 2020 on how well countries were handling the 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic to measure which countries would be good places to make investment decisions in in the future. The studies, which ranked Israel as both the safest country and the country where people felt the most safe, were touted by the Prime Minister of Israel, Benjamin Netanyahu. Scientists and journalists criticised the studies' reliability, and The Times of Israel said 'the people behind it also have strikingly unusual career histories'.2 Der Spiegel found a coronavirus pandemic study from the company useful for businesses in providing the information about 'where they can invest most safely and where they may also take long-term risks'.3"The article is no longer a violation of WP:SPAM. Regarding "nor can I find any sources that can verify if it is a real firm (eg. address, phone number)": it is a real firm because reliable sources say it is a real firm. That there is no address or phone number on its website has no bearing on the firm's notability or existence. WP:NOTNEWS does not apply because the company has been discussed in multiple books and journals over a period of multiple years. The WikiProject pages WikiProject Private Equity and WikiProject Finance & Investment/PrivateEquity/SamplePEfirm are not policies or guidelines. From the policy Consensus: "WikiProject advice pages, how-to and information pages, and template documentation pages have not formally been approved by the community through the policy and guideline proposal process, thus have no more status than an essay." During my rewrite of the article I found two more sources that provide significant coverage about the company and its studies:<ol><li></li><li></li></ol>Cunard (talk) 11:54, 23 April 2020 (UTC)


 * @ Cunard. Sure, but WP:NCORP are guidelines and very different from WP:GNG. As this article is on a Private Equity Firm WP:NCORP is the standard that editors should follow for establishing the notability. Here how to apply the new guidelines. Ms4263nyu (talk) 14:22, 24 April 2020 (UTC)


 * Comment there is nothing in the sources that match the description of the company in the Wikipedia article. So again there is no way to identify this company based on the RS, or even if it really exists beyond a passing mention in some of the sources. There is virtually nothing about what this company does, what it's investments look like and so on. Nothing answers the questions posed by the above mentioned model which would identify this as a venture capital firm.


 * Also, according to the sources, there are two different names of companies we're talking about here. Deep Knowledge Ventures and Deep Knowledge Group. I went to website of Deep Knowledge Group and there is no information specifically about the company. There is only one page with links to a few of the articles posted here. It also advertises a book. There is no apparent connection to Deep Knowledge Ventures. In fact there is no connection to anything other than the few articles and book I just mentioned. The sources in the box created by also do not have articles that are about this company, under either name. So again, this is a fictitious company of some sort.


 * The AI program this outfit touted as a decision maker for investments was a publicity stunt and was not nearly as complex as what is in use today for automated-computerized trades. In any case, the AI program might be notable as a PR stunt, because that has been somewhat written about. The self-serving study, not backed by Forbes magazine, touting Israel as safest during the pandemic, might be marginally notable. Forbes actually distanced itself from the study and the blog post that published the outcome of the study. In fact, no relevant facts about the study itself have been revealed, such as methodology and data. Researchers and scientists cannot validate this study. So this is also pretty-much a bunch of fiction as it stands.


 * So again, what we have here is still WP:SPAM. In fact, I'm wondering if it is really a WP:HOAX, or actually more than one hoax, after looking into this more deeply. There was mention that this outfit does intelligence work - as in spy-craft (journalists have uncovered that). So based on the shadiness and lack of concrete details here, this might be merely an intelligence outfit. And there is no extensive information about that either. Wikipedia is not a collection of indiscriminate information WP:INDISCRIMINATE. My Ivote is still "delete". And I still recommend WP:TNT. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 19:14, 23 April 2020 (UTC)


 * And as was asked before, can anyone provide a name, address, or other identifying information about this company? Apparently not because it is not real. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 19:21, 23 April 2020 (UTC)


 * Also based on the above, the topic fails WP:NRV, and Notability is not inherited (WP:INHERITORG) just because PM Netanyahu mentions a study connected with this fictitious entity more than once - in Twitter feeds. Steve Quinn (talk) 21:06, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment I'm not one for cold calls, but this press release appears to include contact information at the bottom. Pegnawl (talk) 20:59, 23 April 2020 (UTC)


 * Comment @ the press release you just mentioned refers to Deep Knowledge Analytics which is NOT the private equity in Hong Kong related to the present AfD. The contact you mentioned is a cellphone from the UK, likely the professional who released the press release. and I argued that a legit and notable private equity firm should have at least an address and a phone number. In addition, the Companies House shows shows that Deep Knowledge Analytics is  another fictional corporation. It is located in a virtual address provided by the London Office in  85 Great Portland Street. The company was incorporated by Dmitrii Caminschii (who apparently is Romanian and not Russian) on the 25th May 2018 with a capital of 100 sterlings (100 shares). I never heard of Venture Capitals investing 100 pounds in subsidiaries. The AfD should be moved in these three categories: fictional business, ponzi scheme, HOAX/fake news.Ms4263nyu (talk) 06:21, 24 April 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep Delete After further digging among the sources, I agree with others that the company itself appears to fail the criteria for notability. The topic and the references show that it meets the criteria for notability. For example, there are two book references mentioned above ("Homo Deus - A Brief History of Tomorrow" and "Cyber-proletariat: Global Labour in the Digital Vortex") which both meet the criteria for references to establish notability. That said, there's probably some further editting required to highlight those parts containing "claims" made by the company which others have pointed out to be publicity hype. Most of what I've read about this company suggests it is mostly hype and PR - but it is still notable. <b style="font-family: Courier; color: darkgreen;"> HighKing</b>++ 13:11, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I understand what you are saying, but the coverage of this topic is trivial. The focus is on different subjects while mentioning this topic only in passing. Coverage is not really about this topic. And that is what is happening with the sources listed by Cunard - passing mention while briefly focusing on another topic. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 16:42, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I also understand what both you and Steve Quinn are saying but for me, while most of Cunard's references fail the criteria for establishing notability (Cunard often appears to ignore the NCORP guidelines and provides links based on interviews/quotations/announcements) the two book references meet the criteria. They both contain Independent Content and while they don't go into too much corporate detail, there is enough in each book to satisfy me that the criteria for establishing notability has been met. And just to add, I don't really care if it is a VC company and there are currently *no* guidelines specifically for VC companies. Most articles on VC companies I have seen at AfD *fail* the NCORP guidelines. There are others who would like to introduce specific guidelines for VC companies but as of today, NCORP is the only applicable guideline. <b style="font-family: Courier; color: darkgreen;"> HighKing</b>++ 17:46, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
 * User:HighKing The mention in Homo Deus (see pag. 693-694 and reference n. 17 pag 932 of the book) is a repackaged press release from blogs. Furthermore, the mention to “Pathway Pharmaceuticals, which employs a platform called OncoFinder” (pag 694) is not even referenced.Ms4263nyu (talk) 20:16, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
 * User:HighKing The mention in "Cyber-proletariat" page 1 is merely trivial. The author writes: "On 13 May 2014, a press release from Deep Knowledge Ventures, a Hong Kong-based venture capital fund specializing in biotechnology, age-related disease drugs and regenerative medicine projects, announced that it ‘formally acknowledges VITAL, a crucial Artificial Intelligence instrument for investment decision-making, as an equal member of its Board of Directors"... "All this sounded very futuristic. As commentators quickly pointed out, however, it was really ‘publicity hype’. Ms4263nyu (talk) 17:40, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Hey, I've taken another look at the sources and I now agree with your comments (and others) that while there appears to be a lot of articles and a lot written about the company, when you dig a bit deeper there's only two real topics (VITAL and their report saying Israel was one of the safest countries) and nothing I can find provides material that meets an ORGIND version of CORPDEPTH. I agree that the mention in "Cyber-proletariat" is based entirely on the company announcement and commentary on other publications - which in turn are based on company announcements about the appointment of VITAL. Also, the "Homo Deus" reference is based on this article from The Register which would (perhaps) provide material for an article based on a topic of VITAL itself, but not for the company. Other book titles appear to fall into the same trap. The "Research Handbook on the Law of Artificial Intelligence", for example, contains no Independent Content and in turn relies on press releases and a "collaborator" and a "founding management partner" at the company. I've therefore changed my !vote accordingly. <b style="font-family: Courier; color: darkgreen;"> HighKing</b>++ 13:16, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
 * , based on the sources I listed here, would you consider the computer algorithm VITAL (which stands for Validating Investment Tool for Advancing Life Sciences) to pass the notability guidelines? Deep Knowledge Ventures' coverage in reliable sources largely is from coverage of VITAL. I am considering creating an article about VITAL and then supporting redirection of Deep Knowledge Ventures to VITAL. Cunard (talk) 18:02, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
 * There are a lot of references that discuss VITAL - I'd say it'd pass GNG. <b style="font-family: Courier; color: darkgreen;"> HighKing</b>++ 17:30, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I am afraid no. WP:NSOFT is an essay but the article is quite far from meeting any of this criteria.


 * Comment I do appreciate Cunard's editing but I am not sure if the article is anymore appropriate for a private equity firm. I also agree with Steve Quinn Deep Knowledge Ventures and Deep Knowledge Group are two different entities. If we think that the article can pass WP:NCORP (which I really doubt), then I advise to rename and categorize the article as "Deep Knowledge Group", a consortium of commercial and non-profit organizations, in which Deep Knowledge ventures might be mentioned as a subsidiary of the group. Ms4263nyu (talk) 14:22, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
 * What I am noticing is an amalgamation of different stuff mashed together via these sources. There is the AI program, there is some coverage that it is a PR gimmick, and some coverage that it is not as sophisticated as what is already out there in the investment world. Then, there is the study, there is the drama of the blog post that posted supposed results of the study, Forbes stating it is not connected to Forbes, and there is PM Netanyahu. Then I see mere passing mention of Deep Knowledge [whatever]. All these have been mashed together into this Wikipedia article. It looks like significant coverage but its not. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 16:42, 24 April 2020 (UTC)


 * @Steve Quinn I agree it is a flurry of press releases,churnalism, trivial mentions. In addition, I find annoying the bombardment of unnecessary references to describe two irrelevant events concerning another company (Deep Knowledge Group). The missing details about DKV (eg.  address, assets, funds under management, portfolio of investments) are important and cannot be found by anyone. Ms4263nyu (talk) 19:47, 24 April 2020 (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. Relisting comment: The article has changed substantially over the past week and could use further input here.
 * comment, My initial concern about this article was the promotional content. Cunard and I edited extensively the article and now the lack of the credibility of both the company and its funders is quite clear. So perhaps it's better if we keep the article as it neutralizes the PR machine behind the 2 hypes described in the page. Having said that, the article must be rewritten and copy edited. In addition, long citations, missing reference and PR language must be cleaned up. The references to DKG (a consortium) and DKV (Venture Capital) are very confusing. I think the article should be related to DKG (the Group/Consortium) and DKV (Venture Capital) redirected to DKG. Ms4263nyu (talk) 11:15, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Amanda  (aka DQ) 00:14, 27 April 2020 (UTC) <ul><li>Redirect to VITAL (machine learning software), a new article I created. Deep Knowledge Ventures' coverage in reliable sources largely is from coverage of its software VITAL. For the creation, I used some of the text from Deep Knowledge Ventures and did a substantial expansion. Here is the lead of the new article:
 * Delete - a classic case of a business article supported only by fluff and a keen advocate. There's no notability here, let alone passing the new stricter NCORP rules. Chiswick Chap (talk) 10:30, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete: the sourcing falls far short of that expected by the minimum requirements of NCORP, and a WP:BEFORE search brings up nothing apart from the SPS, etc., already discussed. There is little to no third-party, persistent, independent discussion of this company, and while thta does not prove either a hoax or spam, it makes either more likely: and both are against policy. ——  SN  54129  13:24, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete. This looks almost like a crafted April Fool's joke, at best I would invoke WP:TNT. Ifnord (talk) 21:44, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

VITAL (Validating Investment Tool for Advancing Life Sciences) is a machine learning proprietary software whose appointment to a company's board of directors was considered by commentators to be a publicity stunt. Florian Möslein, a law professor at the University of Marburg, wrote in 2018 that "Vital has widely been acknowledged as the 'world's first artifical intelligence company director'". Deep Knowledge Ventures, a Hong Kong-based venture capital firm, said it appointed the algorithm to its board in 2014 to conduct machine learning analysis of a substantial amount of data such as intellectual property, financial statements, and clinical trials, and to help the human board members make investment decisions in biotechnology companies.

Commentators viewed VITAL's board appointment with skepticism. University of Sheffield computer science professor Noel Sharkey called it "a publicity hype". Michael Osborne, a University of Oxford associate professor in machine learning, found it is "a gimmick to call that an actual board member". Simon Sharwood of The Register, wrote there is "a strong whiff of stunt and/or promotion about this". In a 2019 speech, the Chief Scientist of Australia, Alan Finkel, commented, "At the time, most of us probably dismissed Vital as a PR exercise. I admit, I used her story three years ago to get a laugh in one of my speeches."

Vice journalist Jason Koebler concluded "there is literally nothing to suggest that VITAL has any sort of capabilities beyond any other proprietary analysis software". Sharwood of The Register determined that as VITAL was not a natural person, it could not be a board member under Hong Kong's corporate governance laws.

Cunard (talk) 08:45, 29 April 2020 (UTC)</li></ul>
 * Redirect to VITAL (machine learning software), per proposal from Cunard. I think this is a reasonable outcome of a lengthy discussion. Pegnawl (talk) 19:58, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment Disagree with Redirect. There is no valid reason to use this as a redirect. There is nothing in here that proves the existence of this company. It seems like a hoax. It doesn't have to exist for PM Netanyahu to quote the results of study that has no substance, and which it was journalists who connected to this company, but tentatively. I mean if journalists can't uncover substantial information about a company, then we surely have no way of knowing. We rely on journalists for our reliable sourcing to produce our articles. TNT is appropriate. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 22:12, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment same here. I disagree with Redirect. In the new article I find unnecessary and unsubstantial the references to the Venture Capital (DKV) and its founder (check the reasons why mr Kamisky’s personal article on Wikipedia has been delete few times and now it is blocked). The new article is uncritical and sounds promotional at best, the pseudo algorithm was just a PR stunt. Was the algorithm ever implemented by anyone beyond this mysterious venture capital? Is still it used? If both no... please just add a paragraph to articles such as machine learning, hoaxes. Please check the easy on WP:NSOFT. I am a media ethicist and I find very frustrating any attempts to give credibility to fraudsters constantly looking for visibility especially if they claim to invest in health and biotechnology. There is nothing funny in this story about Vital, it only reveals the fragility of journalism. Ms4263nyu (talk) 06:28, 30 April 2020 (UTC)


 * Comment I noticed that Wisdom2020a removed content from Deep Knowledge Ventures which was initially reverted by Ifnord and another time by Citobun. Despite a warning from Ifnord, Wisdom2020a deleted again the same content claiming "I am following Deep Knowledge Ventures activities for 5 years and I am 100% sure, that the information about Deep Knowledge Group (which is not Deep Knowledge Ventures), added by people in a last few weeks is provocative and they are trying to tie Deep Knowledge Ventures (as a fund) to activities which are not related to them. Moreover now there are people who want to make dirty reputation for Deep Knowledge Ventures. Can you please either delete this page or restrict editing?" I restored the content and invited him to join the discussion. Ms4263nyu (talk) 07:55, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. No Redirect.- Hatchens (talk) 06:57, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete - interesting discussion. but if you can't WikiProject Finance & Investment/PrivateEquity/SamplePEfirm then you can't start a company article.Grmike (talk) 22:03, 1 May 2020 (UTC)grmike

<ul><li>Comment: I did a selective merge of Deep Knowledge Ventures to VITAL (machine learning software) for these reasons:<ol> <li>Editing policy notes that "Instead of removing content from an article, consider" merging as an alternative to deletion.</li> <li>Deletion policy lists "merging" as an alternative to deletion.</li> </ol> I support a redirect of Deep Knowledge Ventures to VITAL (machine learning software) for these reasons:<ol> <li>Redirects for discussion says, "They have a potentially useful page history, or an edit history that should be kept to comply with the licensing requirements for a merge (see Merge and delete)." This page has both a useful page history and an edit history that should be kept to comply with the licensing requirements for a merge.</li> <li>Redirect says, "Reasons for creating and maintaining redirects include" "Sub-topics or other topics which are described or listed within a wider article."</li> <li>Deep Knowledge Ventures is the venture capital firm that said it appointed VITAL (machine learning software) to its board of directors. Deep Knowledge Ventures is briefly discussed in the VITAL article so VITAL is a reasonable title to redirect readers to.</li> </ol> None of the reliable sources say Deep Knowledge Ventures or VITAL are hoaxes. VITAL is notable not for being a software program but for being the centerpiece of a publicity stunt by Deep Knowledge Ventures. Multiple reliable sources have advanced this view, so I wrote VITAL (machine learning software) to reflect this position in the reliable sources. Cunard (talk) 04:58, 2 May 2020 (UTC)</li></ul>


 * Comment Please note the amount of ivote deletes, delete redirect, and so on, each with its own rationale. Also, note the commentary about the non-company, with much leaning towards a hoax and failing notability, so on. Cunard has been unable to effectively counter overwhelming support for delete.


 * Also, Cunard's favorite trick to have the last post in any given AfD, so the closer sees this as no counter-argument. This is conjuction with posting a blizzard of weak sources. This behavior is not based on adding actual independent secondary sourcing that significantly covers the topic, or accepting that is an unsolvable problem and the page needs to go.


 * This seems to be an effort to circumvent content guidelines and policies. Cunard's most recent post is unconvincing and overall mis-represents a number of productive editors interpretation of the available sources. The sourcing seems to indicate there is a good chance that this subject is a hoax, and that is one of the interpretations of a number of editors.


 * There is no significant coverage of this topic. There is some coverage of other topics. That has been said before. However, the point is, the number of editors that support this view. In contrast, Cunnard's view is hardly supported at all in this AfD. Finally, Cunnard inappropriately moved content from this article to the other he just created.


 * So if this goes to redirect - well viola - fictitious coverage of this fictitious company is there. And if the redirect is deleted - well that content is still in the other article - via so-called "a selective merge".


 * Sorry, but that is hardly a selective merge and it does not support the decision of the consensus of this AfD (WP:CPP). I just want to state it for the record. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 07:37, 2 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Comment I also find quite peculiar that before the discussion was over Cunard created a new article using the content of the article I nominated for AfD. Now, we are discussing in another article if a venture capital created a fictional software that apparently no one never used and which is not even patented. Indeed, I would appreciate if anyone could clarify if it is possible to create a new page with the content of Deep Knowledge Ventures before this AfD vote is completed. If not this behavior should be sanctioned and the new article removed Ms4263nyu (talk) 08:09, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
 * If you think I may have violated any policies, you can ask admins and editors at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents to review what I have done. The notability case for Deep Knowledge Ventures is difficult to establish since almost all of the sources are about VITAL, its software and publicity stunt. Following Deletion policy, I created VITAL (machine learning software) because the notability case is much easier to establish. HighKing, who supported deletion of Deep Knowledge Ventures, said, "There are a lot of references that discuss VITAL - I'd say it'd pass GNG." Cunard (talk) 08:32, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I am sorry but you are twisting what HighKing wrote. HighKing never told you to create a new article before the AfD was completed. You could have at least created a stub article. Ms4263nyu (talk) 09:09, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
 * HighKing wrote the sentence about VITAL and GNG after I created the article. My intent was not to say HighKing told me "to create a new article before the AfD was completed". My intent was to say I hoped that after I boldly created the new article, I could show to AfD participants like HighKing the depth of coverage and analysis that VITAL has received. Cunard (talk) 09:20, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Just to clarify. All my opinion. Under NCORP, the article on the company (here at AfD) does not meet the requirements for notability because there are insufficient references that meet the criteria for establishing notability as per NCORP. While reading the various references and searching I came across many references that referred to VITAL - whether to comment that it was, perhaps, a PR stunt - or to comment on whether some software could be appointed to the board - or to comment on whether this was a starting point for a future whereby decisions would involve using AI. There are certainly multiple sources that discuss VITAL in this way and these sources (again, in my opinion) meet the criteria for notability. I am not relying on WP:SOFTWARE but on WP:GNG - my reasoning is that even thought VITAL is AI software, its notability is the context of usage rather than any other aspect such as features or effects. I have not read Cunards new article so I am not commenting on the specifics of whatever new article has been written. But I do not see any reason why Cunard could not write a new article on this topic so long as the emphasis is on VITAL (and not the company or founder, etc) and that it highlights (from citations/references) the reasons for notability. <b style="font-family: Courier; color: darkgreen;"> HighKing</b>++ 19:10, 2 May 2020 (UTC)


 * DELETE This is a non notable company that used a PR stunt half a decade ago to boost thier profile. That PR stunt gained some traction in the media, but no lasting coverage. The company then went back into obscurity. Isreali PM seems to have mentioned thier name once in his tirade like speech. If we analyze the company or group or whatever they actually are, we will see that even thier address is not available. What proof do we have of thier existence? Just that they used a PR stunt half a decade ago? It fails everything from WP:NCORP to WP:GNG Wikipedia is not news, and this belongs on a news website, probably in the hoax column. MistyGraceWhite (talk) 09:09, 3 May 2020 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. <b style="color:red">Please do not modify it.</b> 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.