Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Deep Knowledge Ventures (2nd nomination)

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
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 redirect to VITAL (machine learning software). The actual consensus is pretty strongly for deletion without redirect. However, because parts of this article have been merged to VITAL (machine learning software) while the AfD has been running, this article must be redirected rather than deleted in order to preserve the attribution. Since VITAL is now itself at AfD, the result of that AfD will effectively determine the true outcome of this one. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 14:25, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Deep Knowledge Ventures

AfDs for this article:

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

Deep Knowledge Ventures (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats
)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I renominate the article for deletion after a "no consensus". The article does not meet

talk) 14:14, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Ms4263nyu: You’ve nominated the talk page, not the article... —Tom Morris (talk) 15:10, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply
]
talk) 15:33, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This discussion has been included in the
talk) 14:14, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 15:13, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 15:13, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 15:13, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The

independent content. I have identified only cases of dependent or trivial
coverage not sufficiente to establish notability.

Here's my assessment of the reliable sources:

Analysis of references
Source Significant? Independent? Reliable? Secondary? Pass/Fail Notes
Bloomberg Red XN Green tickY Green tickY Green tickY Red XN No Results, Company is not listed
Wall Street Journal Red XN Green tickY Green tickY Green tickY Red XN No Results, Company is not listed
Financial Times Red XN Green tickY Green tickY Green tickY Red XN Company is not listed. In one article Dmitry Kaminskiy, Managing Partner is quoted as a panelist of a conference and author of the UK Longevity Industry Report.
Hong Kong Companies Registry Green tickY Green tickY Green tickY Red XN Red XN Company listed but address and names of officers and board members are not stated.
Factiva Dow Jones Green tickY Red XN Green tickY Red XN Red XN Most of the articles are company-sponsored or based on company's press releases.
Forbes Green tickY Red XN Green tickY Red XN Red XN Most of the posts are company-sponsored, based on company's press releases or a contributed piece by a co-founder of Deep Knowledge Ventures.
Times of Israel Red XN Green tickY Green tickY Green tickY Red XN The newspaper derides the investment capital firm and its funder and co-funder.
Total qualifying sources 0 Lack of qualifying sources to meet the notability requirements

I do not have direct experience with private equity or venture capitals so members of the Private Equity WikiProject Task Force might help answer their own questions for establishing notability: 1) Has this firm or investor completed any notable investments? 2) Is this an "emerging manager"? 3) How much capital does this firm / investor manage? 4) Does a firm / investor have an institutional investor base? Thanks!

talk) 20:52, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

  • Itzik Ben-Israel, a retired IDF general and chairman of the Israel Space Agency, called the mother of fake news". The Times of Israel added that Itzik Ben-Israel found the coronavirus rankings "not formal, official or credible".

    Deep Knowledge Ventures appointed VITAL to its board of directors in 2014. This received significant coverage in the Vice, CNN, BBC, El Espectador, The New York Observer, Wired, the Daily Mirror and The Register in 2014.

    Reliable sources have continued to cover Deep Knowledge Ventures' work on VITAL. It received significant coverage in the 2015 Pluto Press book Cyber-proletariat: Global Labour in the Digital Vortex, the 2017 Harper book Homo Deus: A Brief History of Tomorrow, and the 2018 Edward Elgar Publishing book Research Handbook on the Law of Artificial Intelligence. It also received significant coverage in Multitudes (2015), The Nikkei (2017), 华东政法大学学报 (a journal available through CNKI) (2018), and Fortune (2019).

    The sources provide critical analysis about Deep Knowledge's work on VITAL. The Harper book notes, "Examining VITAL’s record so far, it seems that it has already picked up one managerial vice: nepotism." The Pluto Press book notes, "The press release was a stunt because the future to which it seemed to point exists now". The BBC article quotes University of Sheffield Professor Noel Sharkey, who said, "On first sight, it looks like a futuristic idea but on reflection it is really a little bit of publicity hype." The Vice article provides substantial coverage about Deep Knowledge Ventures: that it was founded by Russian Dmitry Kamenskiy, "shrouded a bit in mystery", has a board of "five anonymous partners", and has invested in Insilico Medicine and a second company through Vital's help. The Register calls a Vital a "stunt" and explains in detail why. Fortune said, "In the five years since Deep Knowledge's A.I. got its board seat, there hasn't exactly been a stampede of companies following suit."

    Cunard (talk) 00:28, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply

    ]

talk) 07:14, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply
]
  • Comment
    WP:GNG is the accepted standard that editors should follow for establishing the notability of a compan . The new guideline has become considerably more restrictive about which sources are considered usable to show notability. Here how to apply the new criteria
    .


Can anyone provide the address, phone number of this venture capital? I find intriguing their website doesn't even reveal where they live, as the The Times of Israel notices the only evidence of the existence of this venture capital is a LinkedIn page.
The funder of the DKV,
talk) 06:38, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply
]
  • Delete and
    Ms4263nyu
    has provided. This seems to be a shady outfit of some sort of a so-far undefined nature. After sifting through some of these sources, this Wikipedia article appears to be an inaccurate characterization of this company.
This is more like
WP:SPAM. Additionally, as has been shown above, apparently the references in the article do not support notability for this topic. Also, based on the questions posed above by Ms4263nyu, this does not fit the criteria as a VC firm, criteria delineated by the Private Equity WikiProject Task Force. Therefore delete this, and if someone wants to write a different article that is an accurate characterization, and show that this is an actual company, that is the route we should go. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 03:55, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply
]
]
@
talk) 14:22, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply
]
  • Comment there is nothing in the sources that match the description of the company in the Wikipedia article. So again there is no way to identify this company based on the RS, or even if it really exists beyond a passing mention in some of the sources. There is virtually nothing about what this company does, what it's investments look like and so on. Nothing answers the questions posed by the above mentioned model which would identify this as a venture capital firm.
Also, according to the sources, there are two different names of companies we're talking about here. Deep Knowledge Ventures and Deep Knowledge Group. I went to website of Deep Knowledge Group and there is no information specifically about the company. There is only one page with links to a few of the articles posted here. It also advertises a book. There is no apparent connection to Deep Knowledge Ventures. In fact there is no connection to anything other than the few articles and book I just mentioned. The sources in the box created by
Ms4263nyu
also do not have articles that are about this company, under either name. So again, this is a fictitious company of some sort.
The AI program this outfit touted as a decision maker for investments was a publicity stunt and was not nearly as complex as what is in use today for automated-computerized trades. In any case, the AI program might be notable as a PR stunt, because that has been somewhat written about. The self-serving study, not backed by Forbes magazine, touting Israel as safest during the pandemic, might be marginally notable. Forbes actually distanced itself from the study and the blog post that published the outcome of the study. In fact, no relevant facts about the study itself have been revealed, such as methodology and data. Researchers and scientists cannot validate this study. So this is also pretty-much a bunch of fiction as it stands.
So again, what we have here is still
WP:TNT. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 19:14, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply
]
And as was asked before, can anyone provide a name, address, or other identifying information about this company? Apparently not because it is not real. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 19:21, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
(
Netanyahu mentions a study connected with this fictitious entity more than once - in Twitter feeds. ----Steve Quinn (talk) 21:06, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply
]
Comment @
talk) 06:21, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply
]
I understand what you are saying, but the coverage of this topic is trivial. The focus is on different subjects while mentioning this topic only in passing. Coverage is not really about this topic. And that is what is happening with the sources listed by Cunard - passing mention while briefly focusing on another topic. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 16:42, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I also understand what both you and Steve Quinn are saying but for me, while most of Cunard's references fail the criteria for establishing notability (Cunard often appears to ignore the NCORP guidelines and provides links based on interviews/quotations/announcements) the two book references meet the criteria. They both contain Independent Content and while they don't go into too much corporate detail, there is enough in each book to satisfy me that the criteria for establishing notability has been met. And just to add, I don't really care if it is a VC company and there are currently *no* guidelines specifically for VC companies. Most articles on VC companies I have seen at AfD *fail* the NCORP guidelines. There are others who would like to introduce specific guidelines for VC companies but as of today, NCORP is the only applicable guideline.
HighKing++ 17:46, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply
]
talk) 20:16, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply
]
talk) 17:40, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply
]
Hey
HighKing++ 13:16, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply
]
HighKing (talk · contribs), based on the sources I listed here, would you consider the computer algorithm VITAL (which stands for Validating Investment Tool for Advancing Life Sciences) to pass the notability guidelines? Deep Knowledge Ventures' coverage in reliable sources largely is from coverage of VITAL. I am considering creating an article about VITAL and then supporting redirection of Deep Knowledge Ventures to VITAL.

Cunard (talk) 18:02, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

HighKing++ 17:30, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply
]
WP:NSOFT
is an essay but the article is quite far from meeting any of this criteria.
What I am noticing is an amalgamation of different stuff mashed together via these sources. There is the AI program, there is some coverage that it is a PR gimmick, and some coverage that it is not as sophisticated as what is already out there in the investment world. Then, there is the study, there is the drama of the blog post that posted supposed results of the study, Forbes stating it is not connected to Forbes, and there is PM Netanyahu. Then I see mere passing mention of Deep Knowledge [whatever]. All these have been mashed together into this Wikipedia article. It looks like significant coverage but its not. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 16:42, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@
talk) 19:47, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply
]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: The article has changed substantially over the past week and could use further input here.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, --
Amanda (aka DQ) 00:14, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply
]
  • Redirect to VITAL (machine learning software), per proposal from Cunard. I think this is a reasonable outcome of a lengthy discussion. Pegnawl (talk) 19:58, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Disagree with Redirect. There is no valid reason to use this as a redirect. There is nothing in here that proves the existence of this company. It seems like a hoax. It doesn't have to exist for PM Netanyahu to quote the results of study that has no substance, and which it was journalists who connected to this company, but tentatively. I mean if journalists can't uncover substantial information about a company, then we surely have no way of knowing. We rely on journalists for our reliable sourcing to produce our articles. TNT is appropriate. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 22:12, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment same here. I disagree with Redirect. In the new article I find unnecessary and unsubstantial the references to the Venture Capital (DKV) and its founder (check the reasons why mr Kamisky’s personal article on Wikipedia has been delete few times and now it is blocked). The new article is uncritical and sounds promotional at best, the pseudo algorithm was just a PR stunt. Was the algorithm ever implemented by anyone beyond this mysterious venture capital? Is still it used? If both no... please just add a paragraph to articles such as
    talk) 06:28, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Comment Please note the amount of ivote deletes, delete redirect, and so on, each with its own rationale. Also, note the commentary about the non-company, with much leaning towards a hoax and failing notability, so on. Cunard has been unable to effectively counter overwhelming support for delete.
Also, Cunard's favorite trick to have the last post in any given AfD, so the closer sees this as no counter-argument. This is conjuction with posting a blizzard of weak sources. This behavior is not based on adding actual independent secondary sourcing that significantly covers the topic, or accepting that is an unsolvable problem and the page needs to go.
This seems to be an effort to circumvent content guidelines and policies. Cunard's most recent post is unconvincing and overall mis-represents a number of productive editors interpretation of the available sources. The sourcing seems to indicate there is a good chance that this subject is a hoax, and that is one of the interpretations of a number of editors.
There is no significant coverage of this topic. There is some coverage of other topics. That has been said before. However, the point is, the number of editors that support this view. In contrast, Cunnard's view is hardly supported at all in this AfD. Finally, Cunnard inappropriately moved content from this article to the other he just created.
So if this goes to redirect - well viola - fictitious coverage of this fictitious company is there. And if the redirect is deleted - well that content is still in the other article - via so-called "a selective merge".
Sorry, but that is hardly a selective merge and it does not support the decision of the consensus of this AfD (
WP:CPP). I just want to state it for the record. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 07:37, 2 May 2020 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Deep_Knowledge_Ventures_(2nd_nomination)&oldid=954827768"