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 keep. Consensus has tended towards keeping the article; significantly HighKing switched from the strongest "delete" argument to a "keep" one. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 19:22, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

1mg[edit]

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

1mg (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non notable company fails GNG. Darktaste (talk) 12:07, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 14:14, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 14:14, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 14:14, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 03:43, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 23:58, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Times of India is a mention with no in-depth info on the company failing WP:CORPDEPTH
  • Mint is based entirely on an announcement by the company and information provided by the company (obvious when the text "slips up" and says "are suitable for *our* customer base" :-) failing WP:ORGIND
  • Business Standard has no in-depth info on the company, fails WP:CORPDEPTH
  • Entrepreneur is entirely based on a company announcement and info provided by the company, fails WP:ORGIND.
All of the articles I can find are generated from company information, essentially all part of the same echo chamber and I have been unable to find suitable refs. Topic fails WP:NCORP. HighKing++ 12:52, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Even though I've pointed out precise reasons why those references fail our guidelines, as well as links to the guidelines themselves, you then post an Inc42 reference which relies completely on an interview with the CEO (fails ORGIND), a Quartz reference on the ban in India on selling medicines online and which doesn't even mention the topic company, an Entrackr reference that discusses a report by Kalagato but does not link to the report or provide a reference to the report, fails WP:RS as a reliable source and finally Times of India reference based on an announcement (just like similar articles in TechCrunch, Business Standard, etc. Just announced today too, isn't it remarkable how many editors have been trying to pump the value of this company and increase it's exposure just as it being rescued with a buyout. Such a coincidence. Still fails our notability standards though. HighKing++ 17:43, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Link RS Significant Independent Count towards notability Comments by HighKing
Inc42 Yes Yes It is agreed that some portions are derived from an interview. But there are also multiple paragraphs that are written by the journalist as their own analysis of the conversation and beyond. Yes There is no analysis provided by the journalist about the company. Fails ORGIND.
Business Standard Yes Yes Survey was done by 1mg so it might be supplied by them but there is an independent view point with authors name Yes Not interested in an independent viewpoint of the survey, we require in-depth information on the company. Fails CORPDEPTH
Quartz Yes The URL, the title itself contain 1mg. Please read it again Yes Yes The URL might contains the name of the company but the article itself doesn't even mention it. Fails CORPDEPTH
Amar Ujala News Yes Yes Yes Yes Report on the ban handed out by the High Court. Mentions the topic company in a list of affected companies. Fails CORPDEPTH.
Business Today Yes 1mg Considered as a top Health Giant by media Yes Yes Entirely relies on a quote from the CEO, fails ORGIND and CORPDEPTH
VC Circle Yes Here Indian Govt is asking them to reply Yes Yes I mean seriously? The article notes that "email queries and WhatsApp messages sent to e-pharmacies 1mg and PharmEasy seeking comments on the high court ban have not elicited a response at the time of filing this report". Fails CORPDEPTH
Inc42 Yes Statements given to High court by 1mg Yes Yes Relies entirely on information provided by the company itself, no in-depth information on the company, fails CORPDEPTH
TOI Yes Yes Biggest Health giant mergers is going on, stakes are bought in parts so from 8 months this is consistently in news and on 10th June Tata confirmed on their site. Yes Company announcement by Tatas as I've pointed out previously, not independent (they're an investor/owner), fails ORGIND
TOI News Yes Indepth. URL, title itself contain 1mg and page explains how Flipkart comes to partnership with it. Yes Yes It doesn't matter a jot if the company is mentioned in the URL or otherwise, we require in-depth information on the company. What exactly is in-depth in this article? It doesn't even discuss the company but rather the reaction to the partnership announcement. Fails CORPDEPTH
Mint Yes It in-depth and only one line says that they start selling vitamins. This is not an announcement read the title & content of it. Yes Yes Sure, it isn't an announcement but it is entirely *based* on an announcement? Everything in this article is sourced to the company and quotes from the CEO. Fails ORGIND
Economics Times Yes Yes read time 11 min with all the details Yes Yes This article is what we call an advertorial. All of the information (including the lead photo) is provided by the company named Droplet (an acquisition of 1mg). Fails ORGIND
CNBC Channel Yes Govt approval to 1mg during covid and their plans to distribute medicines. Only a few market leaders have these sensitive rights Yes Yes It's an interview with the CEO. "Startup Street’s Shruti Mishra spoke to Prashant Tandon, co-founder & CEO". How is this "Independent Content"? Fails ORGIND
Economic Times Yes healthy discussions & Comments on Indian Health Industry Yes Yes It's a YouTube video of an interview with the CEO. How is this "Independent Content"? Fails ORGIND
Business Standard Yes Indepth Yes Yes Another advertorial profile of the company, relies entirely on information provided by the company, their founders and their investors, fails ORGIND
1mg Economics Times Yes No Yes Yes What exactly is indepth about this article? It has zero information about the company and it is only mentioned in the context of Cash On Delivery options being removed from any websites providing items banned by the High Court including that of 1mg. Fails CORPDEPTH
Business Standard Yes Rural Medicine Supply via Govt CSC partnership Yes Yes Another article based on an announcement with all information sourced from connected sources, fails ORGIND
Inc42 Yes Complete growth and fall of the company Yes Yes An article blandly reciting the numbers announced in the latest financial results, comparing them to the last figures. No in-depth information either. Fails CORPDEPTH and ORGIND
The Hindu Business Yes Global Partner of United nation Yes Yes Entirely based on an interview with the CEO, no in-depth information on the company, fails ORGIND and CORPDEPTH
Economics Times Yes Yes Yes Yes Another advertorial relying entirely on information provided by the company and their CEO, fails ORGIND

List of companies bought by 1mg as per reliable sources:

If you are in India then might know that it is similar to Flipkart, Uber, Paytm, in the health Industry. 20-25 reliable, independent, in-depth sources are good enough with various global, national, rural events to prove notability. I suggest editors to please look for the sources by yourself because many might be available in print, Hindi, English, and other regional languages. Still, a lot can be added to this new page if given the proper time. Sonofstar (talk) 12:17, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Response Spamming this AfD with a large uncollapsed table containing 20 links won't win you many friends, especially when someone has to go through them, one at a time, and then discover that not a single reference meets NCORP requirements. You don't appear to have grasped precisely what is required for a reference to meet the criteria for establishing notability. So, rather than you insisting that all of these references meet NCORP requirements despite being shown why they don't, how about in future you pick the best reference (any single one, not another bunch) and we'll take an in-depth look at it. You can point to those parts of that article that you believe contains in-depth information on the company and also has original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject and we'll comment. HighKing++ 20:50, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Business Standard I agree many of these sources were probably not meeting all pointers like Quartz. User:HighKing Thanks for your time. But I also wanted to highlight that there is WP:SUSTAINED and the news over a long period of time is intellectually independent on the basis of events happening. I think this particular source can’t be discarded and I urge you to relook at it. Here is what I think:
The article has an independent opinion, analysis, and investigation. It includes an IMA statement raising concerns over online pharmacies. If this was meant to be a promo piece, the journalist won’t include this. A number of facts are likely to have come from the company. Did the Journalist fact check them (like google downloads etc), we can’t predict that but might just also assume that they did because Business Standard is surely reputed? Also notice that the journalist says 1mg claims it is compliant with the Drugs and Cosmetics Rules. The use of word claim signifies that the journalist is careful to publish what they can't verify and hence might be safe to assume that they maintained integrity with other facts as well.
With the internet, journalists can easily access people/companies they are writing about it is highly common to have their opinions etc included unless it is controversial or badmouthing. I will request a bit of your help here to give me few examples of online companies started after the internet boom having press about them and that doesn't have a hint that the two parties were in touch. Sonofstar (talk) 05:29, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Response Sonofstar, you say the article has "independent opinion, analysis, and investigation". OK, let's take a look for anything that meets *both* WP:CORPDEPTH *and* WP:ORGIND in the same sentence/paragraph. You refer to an IMA statement raising concerns over online pharmacies - this statement doesn't even mention 1mg so it is a generic statement. Further, the use of the word "claims" shows that the "claim" emanated from the company - that would have been a perfect opportunity for the authors to provide an independent opinion but they passed. And yes, with the internet, journalists have an easier time of it for researching information but the entire point of the stricter interpretation of notability requirements contained in WP:NCORP is to weed out articles that are based almost entirely on company-generated information. Those articles are essentially "secondary" marketing, just repeating the messages and opinions that the company want to put "out there". Nowhere in the article can I see a single sentence that is clearly "Independent Content" (as per ORGIND definition) except perhaps for the very last sentence where it says "Break-even will have to wait for a few years, considering the investment 1mg is making in technology and expansion". That isn't enough though. the "Expert Take" at the end of the article doesn't even mention 1mg which would have been an ideal opportunity for an expert to provide an independent opinion. Finally, it isn't whether the journalists were in touch with the company or officials or looked at the website, that can be perfectly fine, but we then want to journalist/expert to provide their analysis/opinion/thoughts/whatever on whatever information they've been provided. That isn't happening in this article or in any of the others linked above either. Some good places to look for "Independent Coverage" include a case study in a book (with the author's analysis), analyst reports containing an opinion on the company (not just repeating reported earnings or funding announcements), an article that compares this company and their methods, models, etc, with a different company in the same field. HighKing++ 21:47, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Response Thanks for the detailed response. I agree on various points but I also disagree with you on others. I think it would depend on how we read and interpret and it's fair to have different opinions. I see some other interesting facts said by the journalist, helps people order medicines and also provides information and suggestions on cheaper generic substitutes. I didn't see this information anywhere else and seems to be an independent observation. And similarly, The company does not process requests for Schedule X and other habit-forming drugs.. What you found promising, that is Break-even will have to wait for a few years, considering the investment 1mg is making in technology and expansion., I actually found it promotional. To me, it read like the company is trying to use expansion as an excuse to justify the delay in a breakeven. Do you see what I am saying? I still think this article would contribute to notability but that's just my opinion. You and other editors can surely differ on this and I respect that. A healthy discussion only helps understand different viewpoints better.
I am happy you talked about the comparison. [14]. This article (I couldn't access it because it needs a subscription. I believe you have it.), has an overall observation on what's happening right now (or was) in the online pharmacy market. All other online pharmacies were merging or being acquired but 1mg was going solo (they later were bought out by Tata is a different story). But I still feel this piece talks about the company in the context of the industry and independently. But I was not able to read it and you were, so you will have a more informed opinion on it. I might just urge you to relook at the context I defined above. Since other editors can't access this, we will only have a limited opinion on the utility of this source.
As you said case studies, I found this link [15] which leads to QYResearch having a complete case study with a large portion dedicated to 1mg. I can only access the table of contents from now that includes 5 sections on the company: 1MG Company Details, 1MG Business Overview and Its Total Revenue, 1MG Online Pharmaceuticals Introduction, 1MG Revenue in Online Pharmaceuticals Business (2015-2020), 1MG Recent Development. So there is evidence that such a detailed case study exists. We don't know what's written there yet. I have filled up their form to access it; let's see if we get that in time. I reckon many more such case studies would exist but we won't have access to those. Another report mentions 1mg in passing in the summary but might have more in the full report (which is available on purchase) [16]. Also found an article referring to this report and then discussing the company a bit with other players here [17].
I think this source at Indian Express will surely comfort you [18]. It says But keeping in mind the fact that we do not have a proper guideline or regulation to control the sale of drugs online till date, this can be termed as both an advantage and a disadvantage of the app. While it is simple and convenient especially for elderly and bedridden patients, there are high chances of drugs being mixed up or misused. Also, the drugs delivered online do not come with instructions or assurance of quality. A balanced view and opinion and the article also discusses other health apps.
This one also has a very detailed analysis [19], giving out a complete analysis and Journey of the company along with others in the market.
Another article [20] discusses and analyses their financials and the title focusses on 76% higher losses. The data is attributed to the company filings but the analysis and reporting on it are independent.
I think with the QYResearch case study, The Indian Express article, and The Business Bar Article we might be close to WP:THREE. The Inc42, Business Standard, ET (that talks about 1mg going solo) further supports. Sonofstar (talk) 06:39, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Response The QYResearch analyst report is a good reference that meets the criteria. Likewise the redseer analyst report contains a case study on 1mg (chapter 3.6) and is a good reference that meets the criteria. I've also found two reports with Frost & Sullivan analysts and while those reports attribute the sourcing of the data and information to the respective company websites, the subsequent analsysis is and detail meets the requirements. Based on these new references, I'll strike my Delete !vote and change to Keep. HighKing++ 11:58, 15 June 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.
More