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.
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).reply
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_creepTalk10:32, 2 December 2019 (UTC)reply
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.
[1]] 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_creepTalk16:13, 2 December 2019 (UTC)reply
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.
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.
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).reply
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_creepTalk10:32, 2 December 2019 (UTC)reply
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.
[1]] 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_creepTalk16:13, 2 December 2019 (UTC)reply
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.