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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:18, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Maven Clinic (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)

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

Fails WP:NCORP. References are acquisition, funding, X of Y articles (2), interviews with founder/ceo, press-releases, listicles and PR. scope_creep^Talk 00:14, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Health and fitness, Companies, and New York. Shellwood (talk) 07:23, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - There is a lot of press but I can only find this as something that would meet WP:ORGCRIT. There are references from Bloomberg, Inc., and other reliable sources but they are mainly commentary, interviews, or routine announcements. --CNMall41 (talk) 05:51, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Already PROD'd so not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:57, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I'm employed by Maven so I won't edit the article directly, but I wanted to respond to this criticism of the current sourcing. I also want to highlight additional sources that the editor may not have had time to look for before deciding to nominate this article. I've seen in other deletion discussions that three sources are required to meet Wikipedia's notability standards, so I'll discuss three existing sources first. This coverage in Fortune is an in-depth profile that points out how Maven is the first billion dollar company focusing on women's health. This coverage in Techcrunch almost eight years pointed out how Maven launched the first telemedicine platform for women. This coverage in Fast Company in 2020 pointed out how Maven was named one of the ten most innovative companies in health care. The company is widely considered a medical pioneer, which should meet the standards of notability. For new sources, I invite you to consider this in-depth coverage from November in Techcrunch, pointing out how Maven is bucking the trend of struggling late stage companies by attracting further investor interest. And rather than just being a simple funding announcement, the in-depth additional reporting includes news of the company partnering with Arkansas Blue Cross Blue Shield to begin serving Medicare patients. That's a big deal. In October, CNBC did an extensive company profile about how the company is booming, while discussing the implications of Roe Vs. Wade being overturned on the company's business model. I looked up WP:ORGCRIT invoked above, and it says "A company, corporation, organization, group, product, or service is presumed notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject." All five sources are clearly independent and reliable, and the readers can see for themselves that the coverage is also significant. Kgeguchadze (talk) 20:06, 19 January 2023 (UTC) — Kgeguchadze (talk · contribs) has only contributed to the article(s) under discussion for deletion and this XFD page. Drm310 🍁 (talk) 06:13, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This is a WP:COI, WP:SPA editor who has made no other edits to Wikipedia. scope_creep^Talk 21:00, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Yes, I'm with the company, as I said in my vote. I've seen these source review tables and thought one would be helpful here.

Source	Significant?	Independent?	Reliable?	Secondary?	Pass/Fail	Notes
Profile in Fortune	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	An in-depth profile of the company.
Profile in TechCrunch	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	2015 piece showing how company is a pioneer in telemedicine.
Fast Company ranking	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Company is named one of the most innovative health companies in 2020.
In-depth profile in TechCrunch	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	In-depth profile of company and its business model.
In-depth profile in CNBC	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	In-depth profile of company and its business model.

Kgeguchadze (talk) 23:49, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• • Kgeguchadze, you're an amazingly quick learner. Drmies (talk) 02:28, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Lets examine the references to show how bad they are:

• Ref 1 [1] X of Y reads like a clickbait site. Non-RS.
• Ref 2 [2] he largest deals in Midtown South included Maven Clinic taking 46,000 square feet at 160–170 Varick St. and TMRW expanding to 38,000 square feet at 250 Hudson St. Passing mention and fails WP:ORGIND.
• Ref 3 [3] PR. Fails WP:ORGIND.
• Ref 4 [4] Funding news. Fails WP:CORPDEPTH.
• Ref 5 [5] Funding news. Fails WP:CORPDEPTH.
• Ref 6 [6] Press-release and interview. Non-RS and Fails WP:ORGIND.
• Ref 7 [7] Funding news. Fails WP:CORPDEPTH.
• Ref 8 [8] Funding news. Fails WP:CORPDEPTH.
• Ref 9 [9] Funding news. Fails WP:CORPDEPTH.
• Ref 10 [10] Another X of Y article. Complete dross. Lowest designed muck you can images. Trash.

So none of these references meet WP:SIRS. Looking at the references provided above.

• Ref 1: [11] Funding news. Same ref as in the article. Fails WP:CORPDEPTH.
• Ref 2: [12] Says it all. Press-release.
• Ref 3: [13] PR. Fails WP:SIRS. Not-indepth.
• Ref 4: [14] Routine valuations. Fails WP:CORPDEPTH.
• Ref 5: [15] Interview with the founder. Fails WP:ORGIND, WP:SIRS. Not independent.

These references are pure junk. scope_creep^Talk 00:02, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep – I'm one of those who believe in the notion that UPEs shouldn't be rewarded (as the creator of this article has been blocked for that, but perhaps this company may not be aware of that UPE is a no go-area). User:Kgeguchadze were honest enough to declare their COI and present the sources exactly required by us (saving everyone's time). IMHO, this is the type of company we should cover as an encyclopedia and unicorns are almost always notable. There is a case-study on Maven by Harvard Business School, Maven Clinic: Women's Health in the Digital Age. Further in-depth sources are given below:
• Maven Clinic, a telehealth provider, exceeds $1 billion in valuation, The New York Times
• [16], Fortune (magazine)
• In-depth profile on CNBC Disruptor 50, CNBC
• [17]

2A01:E0A:2C9:A5E0:74A0:FDAF:92DA:F0F5 (talk) 02:20, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This is a WP:COI, WP:SPA editor who has made no other edits to Wikipedia. scope_creep^Talk 02:45, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - there appears to be insufficient independent, reliable, in-depth support for notability per WP:NCORP, e.g. many low-quality sources (such as Techcrunch, FierceHealthcare, Mobi Health News etc) churning PR copy, sources substantially and uncritically relying on statements by the founder, sources about the founder, trivial coverage of e.g. capital transactions, annual financial results, product or product line launches, personnel changes, 'best of' lists. My search for sources finds many press releases and sources that substantially rely on promotional statements by the founder. Beccaynr (talk) 01:42, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete The source-analysis provided by nominator make sense. The subject does not meet WP:NORG. ─ The Aafī (talk) 14:29, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Regarding the lastest references supplied by the coi editor:

Ref 1 [18] by Stern and Mehta, 3 March 2020. It is a case study for internal use only by Harvard University. Its not designed as an endorsement of the company, its not been written that way and it states it clearly in the opening page. It is not same kind of financial case study that a commercial bank would make or a technology evaluation case study that a technology review company would create. A substantial amout of it comes from Kate Ryder from interviews, for example [19], from the website, for example costs of treatement and a substantial block of the document has been taken from "Maven Clinic White Paper". It is essentially a description of the company from when it was created to the types of problems it has faced to a description of telemedicine providers. It essentially a primary source and can't be used to define notability, so fails WP:SIRS.

Ref 2 [20] This is from a press-release. The same text appears on multiple sites. Fails WP:SIRS

Ref 3 [21] Same press-release. Fails WP:SIRS

Ref 4 [22] Lots of content take from founders blog, website and the same interview as abovr. Fails WP:ORGIND.

Ref 5 [23] PR. Not independent.

None of these satisfy true secondary sources that lifted straight from the company website. All of them, in one way of another fails WP:SIRS. scope_creep^Talk 00:49, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Linguist111 (talk) 05:55, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I agree that most of the sources explained above are not useful. I don't see any further sourcing we can use. Oaktree b (talk) 13:06, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - The subject of this advertorial article fails WP:NCORP. Sources fail WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:SIRS. That there are COI and possible UPE editors and sockpuppets is very troubling, as is the fact that there are two three single purpose accounts on this AfD. Netherzone (talk) 01:36, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I also find it troubling that the article was created by a now-blocked user who was blocked for using multiple accounts illegitimately. That the SPAs on this AfD are obviously experienced in wiki-code, policy, diffs, etc. leads one to think there may be some coordination going on or block evasion. Something seems fishy. Netherzone (talk) 15:48, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment This is a curious nomination, given the strong sourcing. The nominator's persistent efforts to gaslight other editors and summarily reject a plethora of independent, reliable in-depth sources is strange. Labeling every keep voter as COI removes my need to assume good faith in return. Let's take a deeper look at the nom's AfD history to see if we can figure out what's going on. I saw this company discussion article where he (I'm assuming gender based on his unpleasant and badgering temperment) voted to keep. [In the AfD discussion,] he acknowledged that Sunnova is a public company, and said it must be notable because it's large and international. OK - that's fine, but oddly, there are only two independent sources. Look at the NY Times coverage. Using Scope's argument above, phrases like "The company said" and "Sunnova executives argue" should disqualify this source, since it's based on interviews. Of course it's gaslighting, and Wikipedia says nothing about interviews in its notability guidelines, but I'm making a point so bear with me. The other source is based on funding news, and I never heard of Capital Monitor. It's not on the reliable sources board. Using Scope's arguments about funding news, this is routine coverage and should be rejected. That's it - that's all the independent sourcing. And this was a keep vote for Scope. I know about WP:OTHERSTUFF, but this is different, and should raise some eyebrows about the nom's notability judgement. Since the Sunnova keep vote is wildely inconsistent for Scope, based on his efforts to delete this article, experienced editors and AfD stalkers alike will have to think about what is likely happening here. Is it a shared account? Even worse, that nomination was immediately withdrawn after Scope voted. Looks like a nominate and "pay to keep" scheme. This is potentially worse than WP:IDONTLIKEIT. I reached out to Sunnova to see if they got an extortion letter after the article was nominated and will forward any evidence I can find, but they may be wary of getting attacked again. I also take exception to Beccanyr's odd comment that she looked up more sources and found press releases. How is that relevant? Plenty of good sources here in the article and in the discussion. The table shows good info. In any case, how does issuing a press release determine a company's notability? Gaslighting again, and a non-policy argument. Lastly, a lot of the company coverage comes in tandem with coverage of the founder, but there's also good in-depth coverage of others in the company, such as this Wall Street Journal piece [[24]]. A direct quote from that article "Since launching in 2014, Maven Clinic has become the world’s largest telemedicine provider for women’s and family health, supporting every aspect of reproductive care from preconception to early pediatrics." I'll wrap up by showing this Fast Company coverage which includes a founder's interview. All in all, the body of coverage makes this a clear keep. We can address the off-Wiki collaboration and gaslighting between the delete voters later. 68.5.3.227 (talk) 04:42, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This is a WP:COI, WP:SPA editor who has made no other edits to Wikipedia. scope_creep^Talk 12:08, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It's also repeating the tiresome fallacy that articles which rely entirely on quotes and information from the company/execs are still acceptable sources for the purposes of establishing notability. This does not meet GNG and NCORP criteria for "Independent" sources, described in detail at WP:ORGIND. There's gaslighting going on alright but it isn't from scope_creep or anyone else. HighKing⁺⁺ 11:49, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete This is a company therefore WP:NCORP guidelines apply which requires references discussing the *company* in detail. WP:SIRS tells us that *each* reference must meet all the criteria for establishing notability, so two deep or significant sources containing "Independent Content" showing in-depth information *on the company*. "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. So that excludes sources that regurgitate the info provided by the company, quotations, press releases, announcements, interviews etc. None of the references meet the criteria for establishing notability of the company, none of the "reviews" provide more than a brief mention of the company. Topic therefore fails GNG/NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 11:49, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Per reference analysis by User:Scope creep. Also this article appears to be created by a sock / UPE. I imagine User:Kgeguchadze is also a sock from the same paid to edit WP company. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:28, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Timtempleton, fyi. Beccaynr (talk) 22:47, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks User:Beccaynr. Yes it came back as possible. Of course paid editors are well versed in getting around CU. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:32, 31 January 2023 (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.