Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/SonoVol


 * 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. -- Ed (Edgar181) 22:52, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

SonoVol

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Fails GNG by a mile. Out of the nine sources, 1 is the company website, 1 is the website of the faculty founder, 2 are press releases, 3 are funding award notices at the NSF, 1 is an interview with a company employee about his grant-writing prowess, and one is a scientific paper about the underlying technology. No independent sources with substantial coverage about the company. None. Was created by and almost all edits are by a company employee who is new to Wikipedia. Jytdog (talk) 15:48, 10 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep
 * Source 1: Independent agency's description of the company. Source 2: an independent UNC media published article. Source 3: an independent UNC published media about the founder. Source 4: an independent organization detailing funding Source 5: an independent organization detailing funding Source 6: an independent organization detailing funding Source 7: an independent organization published press release about another company Source 8: an independent journal--highly respected Radiology--that has already approved the medical research following peer review. Source 9: an independent (FIXED below) organization's interview with company founder. As someone with ties to the company, I welcome edits for neutrality. However this page is notable in the field of micro ultrasound with multiple independent sources.Jamesobutler (talk) 16:02, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

I have fixed the issues debated below. While my numbered sources above don't match up anymore. I do encourage others to edit the page for improvement to continue the peer review process. ThanksJamesobutler (talk) 14:26, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
 * You haven't added any independent, reliable sources with substantial discussion of the company. The number of those remains zero. Jytdog (talk) 19:20, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Jytdog (talk) 18:01, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Jytdog (talk) 18:01, 10 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete - most are not really independent sources: PR "business as usual"; interview is not independent source. Staszek Lem (talk) 18:31, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Updated article by removing statement that was sourced with an interview and stated as not independent. Thanks for the revision advice! Will continue to improve page with simple edits.Jamesobutler (talk) 19:57, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
 * so here you introduced content that is WP:CRYSTALBALL (itself invalid per policy) with sources:
 * a press release about the underlying technology
 * a trade rag article about the underlying technology
 * another press release about the underlying technology
 * So invalid content, 2 press releases, and a trade rag. Not moving toward meeting WP:ORG Jytdog (talk) 22:07, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:09, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:09, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
 * The "press release" was not written by the business or organization that it was written about.Jamesobutler (talk) 23:18, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
 * They both originate from the university from which the company was spunout which means they are not independent and they are WP:SPS trashy/promotional sources. They are not what we call reliable sources that are independent of this whole thing, and they are not about the company in any case, but rather its underlying IP/technology. I am not going to keep responding to you here as it just clutters the AfD Jytdog (talk) 03:17, 11 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete. Not a single one of the sources is substantial coverage of SonoVol, in addition to the fact that, as explained above, they are not independent sources. There really is no evidence anywhere that this satisfies Wikipedia's notability guidelines. (The article is also substantially promotional, but not so blatantly promotional as to justify speedy deletion.) The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 14:11, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete. No evidence of notability. No sign of significant coverage in reliable sources.  B E C K Y S A Y L E S  10:10, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete References include a mixture of pages not mentioning SoloVol and pages barely mentioning it, which gives no evidence of notability, even apart from the fact that several of the sources are independent. The king of the sun (talk) 15:12, 17 June 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.