Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Netmeds

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. MBisanz ^talk 11:22, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Netmeds

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

Clear company-initiated advertising of which WP:NOT and WP:Paid (non-negotiable policies apply) because it's clear the history's showing of accounts are that by paid employees or hired help, none of which is a convincing factor of notability or an article here; as it is, we've established in past consensus that these offered publications knowingly, blatantly and openly-label paid press, announcements, press releases, advertised interviews hosted by the company, something of which WP:CORPDEPTH states is unacceptable in [Unacceptable sources are]: Simple announcements, statements, press releases, anything by for the company, wherever published, anything where the company talks about itself or advertising and so to examine the sources: 1, 2, 3 and 4 and 6 are all announcements with clear labels of it, thus showing the company is the sole author, considering it's all focused in a self-POV, 5 is a clear PR award published in a business column video, 7 is also an announcement but it's a specialized trade PR publication, thus it's only used for self-advertising, 8 is similar but it's in fact another for-hire profile advertising. Another obvious sign this was started for self-advertising is the fact the largest sections (not that large, to begin with) are in fact the areas where their company services and offers are listed, so if we delete that, we have nothing but a few sentences, certainly not to convince WP:GNG. As stated here, I attempted to improve the article but couldn't simply because there was no genuine independent substance in which to start simplest changes, and a search along with others here showed the same publications involved company self-PR as before, thus it's only emphasizing the company is needing self-published attention and advertising, something of which has always been deleted, regardless, because of our main policy WP:Wikipedia is not a webhost. As our policies note, articles must be improved to our standards and policies to be acceptable. SwisterTwister talk 03:18, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:43, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:43, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Meets WP:GNG. See below for source examples. See also: WP:NOEFFORT. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:50, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

References

Comment and analysis - Source #2 is in the current article and is a clear business announcement, all of the others are literally quotes of either "The company announces today", "The company reported its company has....", "The company has made plans", etc. None of that satisfies WP:CORPDEPTH as noted above. To quote what the article says "Netmeds acquired a comany today" (and it's part of their "business section" thus not indiscriminate considering it's going to say whatever the company advertises). #3 is their company plans and what they're accomplished in it so far....by their own company-authored words, thus instantly unacceptable for WP:CORPDEPTH, #4 is then once again a similar announcement to that past one, $5 is then a funding report, which as stated by WP:CORPDEPTH is unacceptable because it's brief announcements or statements, in which the company talked about itself, or anything published by for the company, wherever published, and that's actually the main section of WP:CORPDEPTH. The thing about #6 is that it actually states Article for minor upcoming business to advertise, so that's instantly unacceptable, not to mention, the accompanying PR-formatted information. With this said, all careful examinations of the other articles found the same conclusion, and that was within a few minutes. To emphasize this, I performed several other searches myself such as this, this and this and which found nothing but exact business announcements and statements, with the credited authorship by the company itself. Note how each search actually gave all of the same links, but without actually using the same keywords, showing this is simply all that exists for the company. WP:What Wikipedia is not then says "Simple listings, Wikipedia articles about a company or organization are not an extension of their website or other social media marketing efforts....listings of business alliances, clients, competitors, employees (except CEOs, supervisory directors and similar top functionaries), equipment, estates, offices, products and services, sponsors...." and that's our two main functionaries for articles here. Once again, I'm absolutely willing to withdraw if and when the significant improvements are made, and not simply cosmetics ones as both of the policies offered above state. Also, to note, since GNG has been offered, to quote GNG....a subject may be presumed (but not guaranteed) to be notable if independent evidence, and not passing mentions or notices are used, in this case, since #6 itself was a clearly-labeled company press release, it would not satisfy our GNG, let alone anything else. We have never made GNG policy, simply because there's always been consensus that such cases have to be evaluated separately, as is the case here; our own users, including the paid spammers, have confessed they have personally paid for these articles, so because the links above share these same qualities, it's simply no different. Thus, why our main policy WP:NOT has always been unquestionably used, in all cases, even if notability was slightly possible, simply because it's never a guaranteed given. SwisterTwister talk 04:05, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. "Unicorn startup award" is just a complicated way of saying not yet notable. There's no need for complicated analysis of a pseudo=article like this. DGG ( talk ) 10:16, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi DGG per your comment, "There's no need for complicated analysis...", did you read the sources I provided above? Just curious. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:37, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete: Not notable. - Ret.Prof (talk) 16:06, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A search reveals a number of sources that meet WP:RS and establish notability such as this and this one in the article and there are others. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 11:27, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 19:02, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- this content belongs on the company web site, not on Wikipedia. No encyclopedic relevance here; strictly promotional & WP:TOOSOON applies. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:21, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- does not yet appear to be notable. Reyk _YO! 14:49, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete overtly promotional, poorly sourced to PR spots. Noticed lots of professional IP editing on this and also the promoter's page. Inlinetext (talk) 16:16, 16 March 2017 (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.