Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Forsight Robotics

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. I see a consensus here to Delete this article. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:08, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Forsight Robotics

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I have checked in detail. The coverage is based on routine events, like funding rounds, etc. Some cited sources, such as TechCrunch, are less useful for the purpose of determining notability (WP:TECHCRUNCH). Plus, COI: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/TheWikiholic. US-Verified (talk) 18:14, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Technology, and Israel. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:19, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep::This is a perfectly acceptable entry with mostly fine sourcing. Cannot see any reason to delete.--Geewhiz (talk) 18:59, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The PAID is unfortunate, especially when it involves manipulation at AfC. It could possibly have been speedied based on promo ("The company’s strategic advisory board includes surgical robotics pioneers") or moved to draft space, but since we are here it needs evaluated for notability as AfD is not cleanup. References must meet WP:ORGCRIT to show notability. While many sources on the page are churnalism or routine announcements, there is this, this, and this which meet that guideline.--CNMall41 (talk) 19:24, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Jewish Business News article has no attributed journalist which is the first red flag. But the fact that the website is ad-ridden and spammy with no information about the identities of journalist or editors should have been an even bigger red flag. The smallest smidgen of due diligence should have spotted that. The Jerusalem Post article starts with a standard company description - the same you can see in just about every other article talking about how AI is being used, etc, etc - and then relies entirely on information provided by the company President. It has zero "Independent Content" as required by WP:ORGIND, fails NCORP. Finally, the WSJ article is a regurgitated press release about raising funding. None of those reference meet NCORP criteria for establishing notability. HighKing⁺⁺ 21:00, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is a company therefore NCORP criteria applies. I am unable to locate any references that meet NCORP criteria for establishing notability. HighKing⁺⁺ 21:00, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, and this doesn't pass WP:NCORP Karnataka (talk) 21:39, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:16, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete Most of the "good" sources in the Wall Street Journal are about funding announcements (the first one is better, it talks about the company, second one is mostly about funding), but that's about all I find. We have about 1 1/2 good sources. Oaktree b (talk) 13:32, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There is Forbes Council article, rest I find are PR items. We're still not quite at notability, the AfC manipulation (if true), is a concern. Oaktree b (talk) 13:34, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Doesn't pass WP:NCORP, no need to say WP:ILIKEIT and WP:WAX. CastJared (talk) 08:18, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment In terms of sourcing, Israel Hayom, Calcalist Tech, Ophthalmology Times and Wall Street Journal are all acceptable and non-promotional.--Geewhiz (talk) 14:23, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The Opthamology Times article talks about an institute in Belgium and a doctor at UCLA, in the US, neither of which deals with a company in Israel. Oaktree b (talk) 18:57, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:09, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Examined the first 14 references. They are very poor, typical of a company using its own branding to advertise its product, a mix of press-releases, PR, funding and partner and investment news, profiles and other routine business news from a startup. Its a company so WP:NCORP applies. Its fail WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:SIRS specifically. scope_creep^Talk 10:28, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I am very surprised at the suggestion that something that might have been DELREASON1/G11 could not be deleted at AFD based on, if not that, then DELREASON 4 (yes, I do tag imo CSD/RD-able pages already at AFD, thank you very much), but leaving aside the discussion of whether we should leave PROMO junk in mainspace or whether our processes should be a suicide pact when met with obvious gaming, the quality of sources available is startling. Startlingly bad, that is. Like, say for the Jewish Business News article (which is also posted at Jewish Review, the admin of which at least apparently willing to put their name on it), what is in there? Going by paragraph, company describes, company declares, mention of some other unrelated company, company explains, copy of cofounder profile from about page, copy of other cofounder profile (same place), direct quote, direct quote. That, uh, not a qualifying source. Fairly transparently so, from just the text. Wouldn't be under GNG either. Alpha3031 (t • c) 14:00, 27 June 2023 (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.