Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Inspirar Health Tech


 * 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 delete. ✗ plicit  05:07, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

Inspirar Health Tech

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

No indication of notability. Only links are to the company itself, and I was unable to find anything better. The only link I could even find that mentions it is: https://br.sputniknews.com/20200828/exercito-2020-brasil-apresenta-a-russia-solucoes-em-biosseguranca-para-combater-covid-19-16004024.html (Though I can't read it because google translate wigs out because of their cookie message that constantly refreshes the page). Aside from that, google only lists a few company listicals and linkedin. —  Insertcleverphrasehere(or here) (or here) (or here)  19:52, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:54, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:54, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

I added external links that prove company activity — Preceding unsigned comment added by CaptainShrimpy (talk • contribs) 21:12, 9 January 2022 (UTC)  — Note to closing admin: CaptainShrimpy (talk • contribs)  is the creator of the page that is the subject of this AfD.

In 45 days, the Inspirar project developed a completely innovative pulmonary ventilator using a completely disruptive technology. The objective was to offer the market high-tech, low-cost pulmonary ventilators so that there was no shortage of equipment to assist the thousands of victims at COVID. In addition, the project donated almost two thousand pieces of equipment to hospitals and philanthropic entities, thus helping to save many lives. This is the relevance presented in this article. A completely new technology combined with humanitarian action to help thousands of people at this very difficult time. That's why this article must not be deleted. To show other companies an example that should be followed! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Denilson G Sousa (talk • contribs) 11:38, 10 January 2022 (UTC) —  has only contributed to the article(s) under discussion for deletion and this XFD page. Drm310 🍁 (talk) 00:57, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
 * How inspiring the company story is, or how worthwhile the cause is makes no difference. The question is whether it meets Wikipedia's notability guidelines. —  Insertcleverphrasehere(or here) (or here) (or here)  08:51, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗  plicit  00:11, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete Overtly promotional in addition to failing WP:GNG and WP:NORG. Best, GPL93 (talk) 15:55, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.


 * Delete Promotional article, where the notability cannot be established.--Tysska (talk) 18:01, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete: All of the page's sources are in a foreign language. Additionally, the subject has no major relation to the U.S. or any sources in North American/English-based media. There are only very few Brazilian pages that are included in the English subdomain of Wiki and there generally has to be sources in English or a strong notability established outside of their foreign territory. None of which I can see in this AfD nom. Multi7001 (talk) 03:13, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
 * What you are saying is frankly bull. Worrysome, actually. The English Wikipedia should and does cover the entire world. Geschichte (talk) 06:23, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
 * This particular page lacks any references in the English language or relevance to the North American lifestyle. I don't see how English users can find this useful. Most importantly, the subject may not even meet the notability guidelines in the first place, based on consensus from other users. Generally, pages like these but of middle to high-importance warrant inclusion in the English Wikipedia (e.g., tourist attractions and notable regions of a foreign territory). This page would ideally be more useful for another Wikipedia if it can establish notability, in my opinion. Multi7001 (talk) 00:34, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
 * @: Per RSUE foreign language sources are permitted, while English language sources are preferred. The "North American lifestyle" requirement fringe theory you seem to be pushing may be discriminatory and against policy and I would advise you to listen to the "worrysome" concerns expressed earlier.  Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 00:56, 19 January 2022 (UTC)


 * Neutral: Weak keep (minimum at present): At least one, and I believe two, of the sources deleted at Special:Diff/1064832212, while in the wrong place and not leveraged properly, see to count towards notability also shown by several of the sources in the article. This needs to be gone to in detail, but I'd assess notabilty is probable.  Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 01:11, 19 January 2022 (UTC)  Working over article sources I am finding concerns about verificability.  There are valid concerns about promotion.  I remain reasonably minded the Organization may be notable but I have concerns about promootion and verficability of content and misused of cited sources.  The existing content and other matters lead to concerns, perhaps justified, perhaps not, about the intergrity of the authors. I am going to move to a neutral !vote; it should probably be a strong delete !vote.  I remain minded it is may be possible a create an article for the company - this however is not it.  Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 19:13, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
 * , You know, there are a number of sources that have been added to the article after I listed it that I didn't find when doing the WP:BEFORE search (primarily because they are in Brazilian and didn't show up in the google searches I did). I can't really comment on weather these sources are good enough to count for notability (because I don't know Brazilian sources at all), but my gut tells me that there is probably enough to justify an article notability wise. I appreciate your delving, and I agree that it might be possible. But I also agree that the current article is not it, and I don't think that the current writers are divorced enough from the topic to be able to write about it neutrally (even if they aren't paid, they have both confirmed strong COI ties to the article). —  Insertcleverphrasehere(or here) (or here) (or here)   20:54, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Strong Delete It is straight-up brochure article with information that is not instrisically different from what is in the product manual. No redeeming features.   scope_creep Talk  17:00, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete, promotional spam article. -- Asartea   Talk  &#124;  Contribs  20:37, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I would suggest the rule of thumb is one is going to !vote delete generally don't edit the article beforehand especially removing sources on the basis of a possible copyvio from elsewhere as was done at Special:Diff/1067117052 — that could have been resolved by a simple paraphase except for the issue the inline cited content didn't come from the source, but as Asartea identified was rather taken from the company website. I have but with alternative prose to cite the source more faithfully.  Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 21:32, 21 January 2022 (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.