Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Viz.ai


 * 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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 15:23, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

Viz.ai

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Classic startup. Fails WP:CORPDEPTH, WP:ORGIND and WP:ORGCRIT. Refs are run of the mill business news, press releases.  scope_creep Talk  18:11, 30 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 20:50, 30 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 20:50, 30 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 20:50, 30 November 2019 (UTC)


 * KeepThere are many reliable sources and the subject is notable. No reason that I can see for pouncing on a new entry and tagging it with (two!) deletion notices..Geewhiz (talk) 21:00, 30 November 2019 (UTC).
 * Hi Geewhiz I'm surprised and will explain it to you. I will go through each of the first 10 references and explain why they are dodgy and unacceptable. The first reference must prove and should prove the article is notable, but it doesn't here. None of them do.  scope_creep Talk  10:32, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment: Yes, there are some press releases, but Jerusalem Post, Forbes, Calcalist and Globes are all reliable sources.--Geewhiz (talk) 13:19, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment Looking at the Jerusalem Post it states: “It’s about getting the right doctor to the right patient at the right time, just in time to make a difference,” Viz.ai co-founder and CTO David Golan told The Jerusalem Post. so it is an press release/interview, primary and can't be used to establish notability as it fails WP:ORGIND. Looking at the rest: Calcalist, it is press release discussing funding. It fails WP:CORPDEPTH. The Forbes one is an X of Y article. Forbes produces 1571 of these articles every year and they are considered non-notable by reliable sources. It is Non-rs as well. The fourth discusses two businesses merging on a business web news site. It run of the mill business news that fails WP:CORPDEPTH. Search for Medtronic Partners with Viz.ai, it's bring up several other sites, e.g. ] indicates it is also a press release. For sure it fail WP:ORGIND. All indicative of a new startup that is advertising heavy to advance its growth and confirming it subject as not suitable as it fails WP:NCORP.  scope_creep Talk  16:13, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
 * In fact when you look at all of them, it is the same press release that has been sent to at least 22 separate news sites.  scope_creep Talk  16:22, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  J 947 &thinsp;(c) , at 02:48, 8 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete I am unable to locate any significant coverage with in-depth information on the company and containing independent content, fails GNG/WP:NCORP. Existing references fail the test for Independent Content and are entirely based on PR, announcements and interviews/quotations with company execs, etc.  HighKing++ 18:28, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete per the rationale of the High King. Not enough here for our general notability guidelines. Wm335td (talk) 20:22, 11 December 2019 (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.