Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PixCell Medical


 * 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. &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 17:00, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

PixCell Medical

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

Fails WP:NCORP. The style is also very promotional. There are some press mentions at reliable sources, but they are almost certainly based on press-releases (|1, |2). -- Bbarmadillo (talk) 20:16, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Bbarmadillo (talk) 20:16, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. Bbarmadillo (talk) 20:16, 2 December 2021 (UTC)


 * Delete It feels like an advert. Perhaps it another time it can be restored if a total overhaul is done. Super (talk) 21:35, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom, definitely doesn't seem notable.  LittleLazyLass  (Talk | Contributions) 00:28, 3 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 05:00, 3 December 2021 (UTC)


 * Delete. Press coverage is certainly based on press releases. One of the outlets that covers the organization most often is PR Newswire, which is clearly a press release publishing website. Other coverage includes reports on a a non-notable round of funding, reports of the organization winning a (probably not notable) award, a Times of Israel article that was probably paid for, etc. Jobie James (talk) 05:36, 3 December 2021 (UTC)


 * I respect all opinions here and can see the argument leans strongly towards deletion. However, let me try to defend the article, at least so I don't take it too personally.
 * I found the sources to be valid with much more sources than can be found for similar Israeli companies, as for them being based on PR and promotional activities - I have no idea, but I tried to be as objective as possible. I don't write much in the English Wiki, preferring the Hebrew Wiki where much more work is needed, however, I am aware of the guidelines and issues with commercial/promotional tones in Wikipedia - which is why I checked comparable company articles to assess the notability of PixCell, which I found to be on par and sometimes more notable than similar articles.
 * The article doesn't feel too promotional in tonality (again in comparison to others), but I could try to rephrase to make it less promotional - however, as the main argument here is on PixCell's notability, I'm not sure that could help. As long as it's not deleted beforehand, I will try to revisit my phrasing in the coming days when I have some time.
 * As for notability, a relatively senior and stable company compared with most Israeli start-ups, it developed a technology based on scientific research at the Technion (Israel Institute of Technology). According to media publications, this is quite a breakthrough in the world of blood testing in remote regions and improving healthcare quality. This could be just blatant promotional material as argued here, but, taken at face value, I believe this to be an interesting and suitable company to write about. Jakednb (talk) 08:51, 4 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Please tell what is your relation to PixCell Medical, Vidisco, SolidRun and Bermad. Is there a possible WP:COI here? --Bbarmadillo (talk) 08:43, 5 December 2021 (UTC)
 * as far as I can tell there's no conflict of interest here, as I was not paid or was not employed by these companies. Both Vidisco and Bermad were companies that I had known via my professional life, but again, was not paid to write about. SolidRun and PixCell are both companies I came across and found it lacking they didn't have an article. People who know I edit in Wikipedia do from time to time ask for my help, but this is always done to the highest objectivity and professionalism I can muster (as was the case with Bermad) Jakednb (talk) 15:05, 6 December 2021 (UTC)


 * Delete WP:NCORP requires multiple sources (at least two) of deep or significant coverage with in-depth information *on the company* and (this bit is important!) containing "Independent Content". "Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. That means, nothing that relies on company information or announcements or interviews, etc. None of the references in the article meet the criteria. I have been unable to find any references that meet NCORP criteria, topic fails WP:NCORP.  HighKing++ 21:38, 6 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete, Article does not show anything to support WP:GNG, looks promotional. Alex-h (talk) 11:03, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete fails WP:NCORP and WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 23:01, 8 December 2021 (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.