Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Phreesia

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 keep. Geschichte (talk) 10:20, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Phreesia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

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

Fails WP:NCORP.Company profiles, press releases and churnalism. scope_creep^Talk 00:29, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:21, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:21, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:21, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:21, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:22, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: The article is written in promotional tone but it is a notable company. It has references from Venture Beat, RT News etc. Also listed in the New York Stock Exchange. Bretalins (talk) 21:01, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Blocked for spamming, likely WP:UPE. MER-C 15:23, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per Bretalins Spiderone 21:08, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I've edited to remove promotional content, but I think that remaining cites and other coverage readily available on Google for this $1.75 billion company all demonstrate notability. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 00:32, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. multiple independent sources. Rathfelder (talk) 08:52, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That are not independent sources, all of them apart of one, fail on WP:NCORP either paid promotion, fail on corpdepth or on orgind as dependent source. However, the fact that listed, is the only reason worth keeping. Certainly the references don't. scope_creep^Talk 01:09, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep. It just went public; I'm inclined to give it a bit more time instead of deleting right now. But I can't locate any very good sources, so I'm not too enthused about keeping either. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 00:15, 13 November 2020 (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.