Deletion of Deep Knowledge Ventures (2nd nomination)

Comment: This looks almost like a crafted April Fool's joke, at best I would invoke 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Blow it up and start over (WP:TNT)

Comment: I https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Deep_Knowledge_Ventures&diff=952658499&oldid=952456620 rewrote the article. Here is the lead: '''Deep Knowledge Ventures''' is a venture capital firm based in Hong Kong. It funds companies that make treatments for aging-associated diseases and regenerative medicine.The company received international attention for its appointment of the computer algorithm VITAL (which stands for Validating Investment Tool for Advancing Life Sciences) to its board of directors in 2014. VITAL was called the "world's first artificial intelligence company director".1 VITAL's appointment raised controversy with critics calling it a stunt and saying that as VITAL was a natural person, it could not be a board member under Hong Kong's corporate governance laws.Deep Knowledge Group published a series of studies in 2020 on how well countries were handling the 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic to measure which countries would be good places to make investment decisions in in the future. The studies, which ranked Israel as both the safest country and the country where people felt the most safe, were touted by the Prime Minister of Israel, Benjamin Netanyahu. Scientists and journalists criticised the studies' reliability, and ''The Times of Israel'' said "the people behind it also have strikingly unusual career histories".2 ''Der Spiegel'' found a coronavirus pandemic study from the company useful for businesses in providing the information about "where they can invest most safely and where they may also take long-term risks".3The article is no longer a violation of .Regarding "nor can I find any sources that can verify if it is a real firm (eg. address, phone number)": it is a real firm because reliable sources say it is a real firm. That there is no address or phone number on its website has no bearing on the firm's notability or existence. does not apply because the company has been discussed in multiple books and journals over a period of multiple years.The WikiProject pages Wikipedia:WikiProject Private Equity and Wikipedia:WikiProject Finance & Investment/PrivateEquity/SamplePEfirm are not policies or guidelines. From the policy Wikipedia:Consensus#Levels of consensus: Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Guide#Advice pages|WikiProject advice pages, Wikipedia:Project namespace#How-to and information pages|how-to and information pages, and Wikipedia:Template documentation|template documentation pages have not formally been approved by the community through the |policy and guideline proposal process, thus have no more status than an Wikipedia:Essays|essay. During my rewrite of the article I found two more sources that provide significant coverage about the company and its studies:{{cite news |last=Siouti |first=Vassiliki |date=2020-04-18 |title=Spiegel's coronavirus research, a Russian longevity expert and Spock. An article published by Spiegel and Deutsche Welle puts Greece in the 15th place among the European countries where citizens are safer against the coronavirus, whereas Germany is placed 1st. Which criteria were taken into account and, mostly, who is responsible for that research? |url=https://www.lifo.gr/articles/greece_articles/278872/spiegel-s-coronavirus-research-a-russian-longevity-expert-and-spock |newspaper=Lifo (magazine)|Lifo |accessdate=2020-04-23 |archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20200423105815/https://www.lifo.gr/articles/greece_articles/278872/spiegel-s-coronavirus-research-a-russian-longevity-expert-and-spock |archivedate=2020-04-23 }}{{cite news |last=Götze |first=Susanne |date=2020-04-14 |title=Im Ländervergleich liegt Deutschland sehr weit vorn |trans-title=Germany is very far ahead in the country comparison. Where is the best place to protect people from Covid-19? According to a country ranking, Germany is currently one of the safest countries in the world in the corona crisis. |language=German |url=https://www.spiegel.de/wissenschaft/mensch/im-laender-vergleich-liegt-deutschland-sehr-weit-vorn-a-ebae15df-eca1-4daf-ae5b-8efcad11ee28 |newspaper=Der Spiegel |accessdate=2020-04-23 |archiveurl=https://archive.is/SqZv7 |archivedate=2020-04-14
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Spam (WP:SPAM||WP:NOTNEWS||WP:PROPOSAL)

Comment: WP:NCORP and not  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 Wikipedia:Notability_(organizations_and_companies)#How_to_apply_the_criteria|apply the new criteria
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG)

Comment: the sourcing falls far short of that expected by the minimum requirements of NCORP, and a WP:BEFORE search brings up nothing apart from the SPS, etc., already discussed. There is little to no third-party, persistent, independent discussion of this company, and while thta does not prove either a hoax or spam, it makes either more likely: and both are |against policy
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOT)

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 machine learning, hoaxes. Please check the easy on . I am a media ethicist and I find very frustrating any attempts to give credibility to fraudsters constantly looking for visibility especially if they claim to invest in health and biotechnology. There is nothing funny in this story about Vital, it only reveals the fragility of journalism
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:NSOFT)

Comment: This is a non notable company that used a PR stunt half a decade ago to boost thier profile. That PR stunt gained some traction in the media, but no lasting coverage. The company then went back into obscurity. Isreali PM seems to have mentioned thier name once in his tirade like speech. If we analyze the company or group or whatever they actually are, we will see that even thier address is not available. What proof do we have of thier existence? Just that they used a PR stunt half a decade ago? It fails everything from  to  Wikipedia is not news, and this belongs on a news website, probably in the hoax column
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:NCORP||WP:GNG)