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. There is consensus that this company is not notable. There were some level of consensus that perhaps a merged Telemedicine service providers article could be appropriate encyclopedic coverage of not only Doxy.me but some other similar companies. As editors interested in those other articles were not notified of this discussion, it would not be appropriate to close this as a merge. However, should consensus, whether BOLDLY or through a formal Merge discussion, be reached to create that article, please feel free to reach out to me as I would be happy to restore this article as a redirect so that content (and attribution) may be merged into that new article. Barkeep49 (talk) 00:25, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Doxy.me[edit]

Doxy.me (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 startup. Fails WP:NCORP. scope_creep^Talk 11:32, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Utah-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 11:44, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 11:44, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 11:44, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: According to WP:NCORP, "A company, corporation, organization, group, product, or service is notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject." Based on that, this startup meets the primary criteria listed at WP:NCORP with at least the following sources: 1, 2, 3, and 4. These all meet: 1) WP:SIGCOV, 2) multiple, 3) WP:INDEPENDENT, 4) WP:RS, and 5) WP:SECONDARY. I was also able to find the following sources which appear to satisfy the criteria above but have not been included in the article: 4 and 5 (this is a review but it's from a reliable source so I believe it still meets WP:RS). On top of that, there are almost 2000 results when searching for articles covering the organization. The sourcing is there to meet WP:NCORP, it may just need some help from other editors to better convey notability in how it's written. Keep and tag as a stub. -- Spicypumpkin (talk) 01:23, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Spicypumpkin, you've incorrectly interpreted "independent of the subject" to mean "independent of the subject" by solely focussing on WP:INDEPENDENT but you've omitted the requirement listed in WP:NCORP (specifically at WP:ORGIND) for "Independent Content". So of the references you've listed above, this from Business Insider relies entirely on an interview with the CEO, this from dereret.com likewise is entirely based on an interview with the COO, this from Health Care IT News relies entirely on information provided by the founder and finally, this from Tech Radar provides no information whatsoever on *the company* (the topic of this article) so I'm not sure why you included it. HighKing⁺⁺ 17:15, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Wikipedia is not a platform for promotion, nor a Yellow Pages. I've provided an analysis of some sources above. The criteria for establishing notability for companies/organizations as per WP:NCORP is for multiple sources (at least two) of significant coverage with in-depth information *on the company* and (this bit is important!) containing "Independent Content". "Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. None of the references in the article meet the criteria and having searched I am unable to locate any references that meet the criteria. Topic fails GNG/WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 17:15, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: I understand where the editor above is coming from and I appreciate the thoroughness. It sounds like we've interpreted WP:ORGIND differently, so I've reviewed again and my interpretation still leads me to believe these sources pass. WP:ORGIND appears to mainly weed out anything that's essentially just a rewrite of material published by a primary source (churnalism). I dove into WP:NIS as well in case I was missing something, and I'm not seeing any examples there that support the claim above. I'm not saying that interpretation is incorrect, but I haven't been able to verify this myself within the guidelines. --Spicypumpkin (talk) 00:46, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The quote I posted above about "Independent Content" is taken directly from WP:ORGIND (which is a section within WP:NCORP which is the relevant guideline for companies/organizations. Our policy WP:N explicitly states in the WP:SNG section: "Note that in addition to providing criteria for establishing notability, some SNGs also add additional restrictions on what types of coverage can be considered for notability purposes. For example, the SNG for companies and organizations specifies a very strict set of criteria for sources being considered". I'm not sure what bit of the quote I extracted from ORGIND is difficult to understand. ORGIND weeds out *all* material that hasn't clearly been provided by a source unaffiliated to the subject. Everything ... interviews, announcements, press releases, profile pages, financial reports, etc. HighKing⁺⁺ 18:56, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment They don't. Lets examine them.

[[1]] Fails WP:SIRS. It is a dependent source. An interview. Fails WP:CORPDEPTH, WP:SIRS

[[2]] A press-release. Fails WP:ORGIND,

[[3]] Forbes reference by a contributor. Forbes is deprecated meaning is not a reliable source. Non-RS.

[[4]] A small profile page in reviews. Fails WP:SIRS

I cant see this one in the UK.

[[5]] Simple listing. Fails WP:CORPDEPTH.

[[6]] A simple profile listing. Fails WP:CORPDEPTH

The coverage is what you find for a small private company. Fails WP:CORPDEPTH, WP:ORGIND, WP:SIRS. scope_creep^Talk 07:57, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: Understood. My interpretation of these was clearly different, but I can see that most of the sourcing is weak. As a side note, is this Business Insider article a press release? And not to engage in whataboutism here, but it looks like by these standards there’s a lot of spam articles already existing within this arena:

• MDLIVE - Of the 6 non-primary sources on the page, 2 are broken links (Refs 3 & 10), 1 is an interview (Ref 6), and 2 won't load for me (Refs 7 & 9). Leaving only this one.
• Doctify - About the same as above, most of the 11 sources on the page are either primary, interviews, press release, or behind paywall
• Medica - This has 3 sources, one of which I had added previously.
• Medic Mobile - 7 sources on the page, not one appears to meet the criteria above
• Heal (company) - Sourcing here is better but I'd like to review this one a bit more
• Zocdoc - First pass of refs appear to be based on interviews
• UbiCare - 8 refs, this is the only one I could actually access
• Clover Health - All acceptable sourcing is only focused on the $160 million raised
• Phreesia - Company profiles, press release, churnalism, and articles based on interviews

I'm going to work on both cleaning up this one, if there are any other sources, and also see what I can do to clean up those, as I agree this is too important an area not to have the best sourced information possible. --Spicypumpkin (talk) 13:51, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge, generally, this and comparable articles like iMedicor and Mercy Virtual into a single article on the telemedicine service providers. BD2412 T 17:47, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting proposition but none of them are rich in academic content, its all company info. And who would do the work?

• Comment That's a great idea, and I'm happy to start drafting that together. I'd suggest when we get to Closer, we might want to relist this, and potentially the others that have been nominated for deletion as well, as we figure out if they aggregate page, hopefully with sufficient material to be noteworthy, will be approved, but if we delete the pages first, that will create a bunch of additional work to find the citations and content, so I can judge what is appropriate. My goal is to get the draft telehealth page done in the next two days, and then I will post the link here. Spicypumpkin (talk) 20:00, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Took longer than anticipated with the election distraction. I put together a draft of this list here. Took a couple off the list due to lack of sourcing or whether it actually made sense to inclde on this list. Some of these pages clearly do not have sufficient sourcing to qualify for a standalone page, but others certainly do (Heal & AmWell for example). This could use some polishing up, particularly in the way it's been sectioned out. And there are likely to be others taht would be qualified to be added to this list. Probably makes sense to defer deletion until we decide on the merge. --Spicypumpkin (talk) 21:29, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• BD2412 actually provided a great idea. Let’s Merge it with other similar articles, using the current draft as the main body. Foxnpichu (talk) 12:28, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I added another source to the page that covers the company in detail, this article.136.33.173.131 (talk) 20:27, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It specifically fails WP:ORGIND. It is puff piece. Insights Care wants to make everyone including Doctors, Healthcare Executives, Healthcare Companies, Institutes, Patients, Medical Students to be an integral part of our journey to witness fascinating changes on a daily basis due to increased technological intervention and other structural changes. Fails WP:SIRS. scope_creep^Talk 20:33, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. I removed this from the article. --Spicypumpkin (talk) 20:10, 11 November 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.