Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cognitive Medical Systems

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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 05:53, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Cognitive Medical Systems

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

Pure advertisement. Would have to be rewritten from scratch--I don't think there is a single usable sentence. And very dubious notability. The only good refs re about health records in general, not this company specifically. Otherwise, refs are notices , or trivial awards. "Fastest growing" is usually a good synonym for "not yet notable"(The local refs are unacceptable because they are not discriminating--they'll cover any local company) DGG ( talk ) 17:35, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I can only find some passing mentions in local press. Doesn't appear to meet WP:GNG. Safehaven86 (talk) 20:36, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, not notable, no reliable sources. Yintan 22:43, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and I still confirm my PROD, we cannot improve an advertisement if those are the sole intentions and if it cannot be convincingly fixed, this is the case, since everything here is trivial and unconvincing and not the substance we would need for an actual article. SwisterTwister talk 23:18, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 10:15, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 10:15, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 10:15, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: appears to be failing WP:CORPDEPTH. + doesn't adhere to WP:NOTADVERT. Anup [Talk] 16:38, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a means of promotion. Citobun (talk) 13:44, 13 October 2016 (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.