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. Fails WP:NCORP due to sources being insufficiently reliable, independent, and/or significant in their coverage. RL0919 (talk) 14:54, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

EverlyWell[edit]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes. However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: ((subst:spa|username)); suspected canvassed users: ((subst:canvassed|username)); accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: ((subst:csm|username)) or ((subst:csp|username)).

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)

Non-notable company with no in-depth coverage in reliable sources. GSS (talk|c|em) 04:04, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk|c|em) 04:05, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk|c|em) 04:05, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 05:07, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. At Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:EverlyWell I asked GSS to delete this instead of reatedly draftifying the repeated recreations. Delete with prejudice per nom. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:10, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. this is a notable company and appeared in many shows like Shark Tank Mohamed Ouda (talk) 05:34, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Mohamed Ouda: I dropped a message on your talk page regarding paid editing, and you need to respond. Thank you – GSS (talk|c|em) 05:50, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Mohamed Ouda, the topic is prone to promotion, and I think it fails WP:CORP. It has been WP:Reference bombed with a large number of low quality sources. What are the two or three best sources for demonstrating notability? The first three are not good enough, and I doubt the rest are worth careful examination. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:23, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak delete The Forbes article probably meets depth and WP:RS guidelines, but the rest of the references are primary or press-release type stuff. Appearing on "Shark Tank" doesn't automatically make a business notable. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 16:22, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Ohnoitsjamie: That Forbes piece is from a contributor, which would not normally be considered independent or reliable as per WP:RSP. GSS (talk|c|em) 16:32, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. The wiki should be kept. Obviously, needs some work for improvement but it has an encyclopedic knowledge which is always necessary in Wikipedia. If references are valid, verifiable and brings insight to the encyclopedia, there would be no causes for its deletion. Wikizziola (talk) 22:49, 18 January 2019 (UTC)— Wikizziola (talk · contribs) is a confirmed sock puppet of DeportivoLara (talk · contribs). [reply]

AFD is not cleanup, it is true, but existence does not mandate inclusion if the company is not notable per WP:NCORP. It is not the number of or verifiability of the sources cite that matter, rather it is the quality and depth.--SamHolt6 (talk) 05:07, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• I have struck this !vote. User has been checkuser blocked for sockpuppetry Voceditenore (talk) 16:03, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. The sources are name-drops, interviews, routine news (Being on Shark Tank/Dragons' Den doesn't make the funding not routine given the sharks/dragons are investors as part of their day jobs), testimonials, or press releases to a one. There is nothing even remotely viable here for use as a source. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^Bori! 23:00, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  And in light of what SmokeyJoe says below, if this article is deleted, SALT the earth. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^Bori! 04:22, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - this is a tiny and non-notable company, with mediocre references; routine "somebody got seed money" coverage and the like does not meet WP:CORP, nor does an appearance on Shark Tank. --Orange Mike | Talk 23:05, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Shark Tank is the highest rated business television show on a major TV network. The company got the highest funding for a female entrepreneur. In my humble opinion, this should make you qualify for WP:CORP. I disagree that this funding is routine.DeportivoLara (talk) 23:22, 18 January 2019 (UTC) — DeportivoLara (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

  Says someone with only two edits. I don't believe you're a new editor for a minute. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^Bori! 23:24, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  And, to deal with your claims: So what? Being on Shark Tank/Dragons' Den doesn't do anything to confer notability, as it's essentially no different from making pitches to five separate potential investors. It's a glorified sales pitch, and cannot grant notability regardless of whether or not it was "the highest funding" because of this. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^Bori! 23:28, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• I have struck this !vote. User has been checkuser blocked for sockpuppetry Voceditenore (talk) 16:03, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• delete fails WP:CORP.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 00:26, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - The article is written from the company's standpoint, and any company can pay for an article written from its standpoint, and Wikipedia should continue to discourage paid editing. The coverage by independent reliable sources is not significant and does not establish corporate notability. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:02, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - This is one of two concurrent deletion discussions. See also Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:EverlyWell. The paid editors are persistent. The page that is currently in draft and at MFD was also created in article space by Neerajmadhuria72014, who is a paid editor. That copy was draftified three times, and promoted back to article space twice by Neera. This page was created in article space by Mohamed Ouda, and draftified by GSS, and then promoted back to article space by GSS in order to nominate it for this AFD. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:26, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "promoted back to article space by GSS" is a misreading, and "in order to nominate it for this AFD" is a serious allegation and not correct. I asked GSS to revert his draftification, for good reasons, which he did. That done, the appropriate thing to do is to nominate it at AfD. Repeated creation in mainspace means that the author does not want to use AfC, and to that the answer is AfD. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:32, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • User:SmokeyJoe's rewording is better. It is correct that GSS, at SmokeyJoe's request not to move-war, reverted a draftification, and then used AFD as the right way to deal with the disruption by Neera and Ouda. Robert McClenon (talk) 07:41, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - Can these two deletion discussions be rolled into one, somehow? Robert McClenon (talk) 03:26, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • The MfD is subservient to this AfD. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:29, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete irrespective of the REFSPAM going on in the subject article, there is a clear lack of in-depth, reliable coverage concerning the company. Despite 29 references, there remains only one source that is explicitly concerned with Everywell, and this source (Techcrunch) clearly frame's the company as being a start-up. WP:NCORP and especially WP:CORPDEPTH are not met by the large number of mentions-in-passing and press releases, which for the record do not confer undue notability per NCORP.--SamHolt6 (talk) 05:06, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Small 3-year-old startup which comprehensively fails WP:NCORP and WP:CORPDEPTH, despite the plethora of "references" (aka notability bombing) to name-checks and routine PR announcements and an obvious puff-piece in Forbes which was not written by their regular editorial staff. Also recommend Salt given the shenanigans in this article's history by obvious undeclared paid editors. Voceditenore (talk) 16:12, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete An obviously promotional article about a non-notable company. The various manipulative maneuvers in the history of this article are quite troubling, so I agree that it should be salted. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 20:18, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete fails WP:NCORP and lack of sources that can pass WP:ORGCRITE. The Forbes article, is an interview of the founder, and is from a contributor who is a college student. Interviews are not Independent coverage. --DBigXrayᗙ 20:49, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Poorly-sourced article does not meet WP:NCORP. Miniapolis 23:42, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete lots of sources, but they're also (Forbes is a good example) significantly weak. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:19, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete poorly sourced. --Vituzzu (talk) 14:37, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Not piling on, but wanted to leave an opinion about the sourcing and Shark Tank. There are a lot of source such as CNN which on the surface look like in-depth news coverage, but once you break them down they are affiliated with the subject or written by contributors. I treat Shark Tank investments independent of the show. By that I mean I like to see that the company has in-depth coverage outside of their appearance. I don't see that here. --CNMall41 (talk) 05:03, 21 January 2019 (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.