Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/NeuroVista

{{AFD help}}

:{{la|NeuroVista}} – (View AfDView log)

:({{Find sources AFD|title=NeuroVista}})

Promotional article created by SPA for a dead company. A single RS; the rest of the references are press releases, blogs and primary sources. PROD removed claiming this WP:REFBOMB must surely constitute good sourcing; but we need more than a single source for WP:CORPDEPTH, and to show that this failed startup was ever actually notable. David Gerard (talk) 10:11, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

:Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. David Gerard (talk) 10:11, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

:Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. David Gerard (talk) 10:11, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

:Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. David Gerard (talk) 10:11, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

• Delete Due to a lack of sufficient sources per WP:RS. ––𝗙𝗼𝗿𝗺𝗮𝗹𝗗𝘂𝗱𝗲^(talk) 01:23, 1 August 2021 (UTC) (If you reply to to me directly, please use a ping {{code|{{U|FormalDude}}}} to notify me.)

• Comment: A [https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6763675/ 2019 article by one of the co-founders] gives a more detailed history of this venture and confirms its eventual acquisition by Cyberonics, on which we have no article, which itself now appears to be part of :LivaNova. AllyD (talk) 07:09, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
• Delete: The suggestion in the nomination that this is a :WP:SPA article seems misplaced: the article creator has been active on other topics before and since. That aside, however, I agree that the article is not demonstrating notability. It describing a start-up, supported by announcement and listing references, which fall under trivial coverage at :WP:CORPDEPTH. The article that I linked above shows that the company's history can provide a good case study, but that is a primary source. In itself, this fails :WP:NCORP and I think the subsequent sequence of purchases into :LivaNova is too much of a stretch for a merge and redirect to there. AllyD (talk) 07:29, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
• Keep - The company itself seems to fail WP:CORPDEPTH, but I could find multiple RS to meet WP:GNG for the trial run by NeuroVista. I would suggest that this article should support that topic. Sources: [https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/forecasts-of-epilepsy-seizures-could-become-a-reality/ 1] [https://www.nature.com/articles/d41591-020-00028-8 2] [https://neurology.ufl.edu/wordpress/files/2020/07/Drew-%E2%80%9CLike-taking-away-a-part-of-myself%E2%80%9D.pdf (pdf)] [https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2021/04/26/do-brain-implants-change-your-identity 3] Suriname0 (talk) 00:02, 26 August 2021 (UTC)
• Passing mention of NeuroVista, no mention of NeuroVista, no mention of NeuroVista, some info on the trial. The last source is actually the source with the most mentions of NeuroVista that I've seen, though the only CORPDEPTH is that it ran a trial, did some science and shut down - I'm not convinced that that article and [https://www.bizjournals.com/seattle/stories/2005/09/12/focus26.html this one] (in the present text) are enough to swing an article on - David Gerard (talk) 10:21, 26 August 2021 (UTC)
• :: David Gerard, what I'm suggesting is that one could write a productive article on the NeuroVista trial, which has received sustained coverage in multiple reliable sources independent of the subject. (Just do a google scholar search for "NeuroVista"!) For the record, the "Nature News Feature" does discuss NeuroVista and its funding rounds, it's just that the linked PDF (for bypassing the paywall) uses embedded images so a text search will be ineffective. Anyway, I think it's clear this version of the article will be deleted (so it goes with CORPs): my comment is for posterity, to make it easier for someone to write a notable article on NeuroVista and its trial in the future. Suriname0 (talk) 14:04, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

{{clear}}

: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.