Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/EverlyWell (2nd nomination)

EverlyWell

AfDs for this article:

• Articles for deletion/EverlyWell
• Articles for deletion/EverlyWell (2nd nomination)

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

• How to contribute
• Introduction to deletion process
• Guide to deletion (glossary)
• Help, my article got nominated for deletion!

EverlyWell (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

Not seeing anything better than the previously deleted version, still no in-depth coverage in reliable sources and no evidence of satisfying WP:NCORP. GSS ^💬 17:30, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. GSS ^💬 17:30, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. GSS ^💬 17:30, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 17:38, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

• Pinging all the previous contestants to look at it again. @SmokeyJoe, Ohnoitsjamie, Jéské Couriano, Orangemike, Deepfriedokra, Robert McClenon, SamHolt6, Voceditenore, Cullen328, DBigXray, Miniapolis, Andy Dingley, Vituzzu, and CNMall41:. GSS ^💬 17:41, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

• Delete – nothing to show that WP:NCORP is met. As in the previous AfD, the only thing that's been said about them is that they received funding money. I have removed some of the company's own promotional/fringe claims from the article. --bonadea contributions talk 18:06, 2 February 2020 (UTC)
• Delete. Forbes contributor pieces (same author) and PR, not enough for notability. But I think it's unfortunate, since the now-cleaned up "criticism" section and the lead saying "Their test kits are not currently approved by the FDA. Multiple medical doctors question the necessity and usefulness of these tests, particularly the food sensitivity test." are valuable information for people looking up EverlyWell online. Wikipedia is about the only online source with enough juice to bump up in search results against marketing and sales. Schazjmd (talk) 18:13, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 18:21, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 18:27, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Lightburst (talk) 18:56, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 19:03, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

• Still Delete. Stuff like this really needed to go. But what else is there? Does this pass any sort of 'notable scoundrel' test? Should we be keeping like (like some other quackery) as a warning? Or, given the inevitable positive spin which will be shoe-horned back into here (like the quotes in that deletion!), should we even try? Andy Dingley (talk) 18:30, 2 February 2020 (UTC)
• Delete - this incarnation of the article in question is markedly similar to the version that was previously deleted. A WP:BEFORE search for new sources (published between Jan 2019 and Jan 2020) turns some press releases and funding announcements, but nothing in-depth or truly independent from the subject. As far as my view is concerned, WP:NCORP is still not being met. SamHolt6 (talk) 18:50, 2 February 2020 (UTC)
• Keep WP:NORUSH I see that the article was recently deleted and I have read the arguments. The company is new and poised to control the mail order health test kits. In 2019 they got an influx of cash. I would like to see the article developed. A relatively new deal on the television show Shark Tank is also notable. There is much RS which can improve the article. Notable company which is poised to be even more notable. Lightburst (talk) 18:56, 2 February 2020 (UTC)
• delete sources read like press releases and routine coverage. Still does not meet WP:CORP "Good to know" is not an inclusion criterion. Wikipedia is not a consumer watchdog site. As Andy Dingley said. And "multiple doctors question" is nebulous, and does not do anything to show notoriety. There are plenty of non notable tests physicians feel doubtful about as a class, and this is just one non notable entity dealing with such tests. "Poised to grow", sounds like a marketing pitch. And Shark Tank is there to promote businesses-- Deepfriedokra 18:59, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

  As a matter of fact, i think WP:G4 applies. And a second AFD is certainly not being in a rush to delete. The thing has now been created twice. The previous deletion was 1 year ago-- plenty of time.-- Deepfriedokra 19:03, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

  Consensus changes. That is why it is unfortunate that an editor had pinged the editors from a full year ago. We might have a new WP:LOCALCONSENSUS with a natural AfD process. I have not seen this done, where previous AfD !voters from 365 days ago are pinged to sink an AfD. Seems rigged doing it like this. The company has secured 50 million dollars in May of 2019 which is 5 months after the first AfD ended in delete. Take a new look. And WP:TROUT to the nominator for the pings. Lightburst (talk) 19:09, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

• Delete due to lack of independent coverage; sources are primarily press releases, routine funding announcements and promo pieces/interviews practically written by the company itself. Fails NCORP and may be suitable for G4. –dlthewave ☎ 19:41, 2 February 2020 (UTC)