Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Biomatics Capital Partners

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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 02:32, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Biomatics Capital Partners

Biomatics Capital Partners (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

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

An article written on announcements and depends on Crunchbase references which are non reliable resources. Fails

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. DefenderBoy27 (talk) 01:45, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. DefenderBoy27 (talk) 01:45, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. DefenderBoy27 (talk) 01:45, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. There are only passing mentions of the company buried within coverage of
  WP:COATRACK opportunity to pursue their agenda of using Wikipedia as a platform to defame alleged child-traffickers. - LuckyLouie (talk) 03:04, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Procedural close article has been greatly changed and improved by @CarlPhilippTrump.me. ––FORMALDUDE^(talk) 14:16, 23 July 2021 (UTC) Delete per nom and per LuckyLouie. ––FORMALDUDE^(talk) 04:44, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I have significantly improved the article (Investments & Exists were listed). --CarlPhilippTrump.me (talk) 13:13, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - even after improvements, third-party sourcing is still funding rounds and other numerical claims that clearly don't meet
  WP:CORPDEPTH - David Gerard (talk) 16:56, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply
  ]

  @

  WP:CORPDEPTH. ––FORMALDUDE^(talk) 17:00, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply

  ]

  And yet, the material fails to show CORPDEPTH even after the additions. What are the three best RSes to your mind that would clearly demonstrate this company's notability to someone who wasn't convinced? - David Gerard (talk) 17:02, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  All of the Seattle Times sources. They have significant coverage about the company, they are independent of the company, and they are from a reliable source. ––FORMALDUDE^(talk) 17:11, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  All two of them are extremely shallow, boosterish and merely repeat company claims, including the company's claims on Crunchbase. I am unconvinced - David Gerard (talk) 17:20, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Note. The Wired reference makes no mention of the company. It's just to hang criticism of Bill Gates on. Esowteric + Talk + Breadcrumbs 17:04, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I removed that para because it wasn't in any way about the article topic - David Gerard (talk) 19:24, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks for that. Esowteric + Talk + Breadcrumbs 19:47, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per nom and above discussion. -Hatchens (talk) 16:57, 24 July 2021 (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.