Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Maven Clinic

Maven Clinic

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

(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)[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]