Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ReviveMed

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. – Joe (talk) 17:39, 19 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

ReviveMed (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)

Delete This was originally an article on Leila Pirhaji and it was decided to rename the article to the name of the company, ReviveMed. Whatever chance the article had as a bio (references to establish notability are easier) it has no chance as a company/organization article. The reference are either PRIMARY sources or are the usual TechCrunch/Forbes/Bloomberg "profiles" that all fail WP:ORGIND as they are not "intellectually independent". ORGIND states Independence of the content (or intellectual independence): the content must not be produced by interested parties. Too often a related party produces a narrative that is then copied, regurgitated, and published in whole or in part by independent parties (as exemplified by churnalism). Independent content, in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. HighKing⁺⁺ 15:45, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:53, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Gameinfirmary (talk) 20:15, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Obviously I can't use "If Jesswade88 created it, it's notable" as a rationale (that's just a heuristic), or even it's just had an AfD closed as speedy keep (since consensus can change) but I can pull up a whole bunch of news sources, and I really can't see how this MDI source or this Forbes report are problematic. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:51, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Response Well Ritchie333, I expect you know this already but your link to Google and a "whole bunch of news sources" isn't any good for the purposes of establishing notability (see WP:GHITS) especially when a look through the first dozen entries fails to uncover any story that meets the criteria for establishing notability (see WP:NCORP). The MDI source is extensively based on an interview with the founder and CEO and fails WP:ORGIND as it is not an "intellectually independent" source. And the Forbes reference is a one sentence mention-in-passing to explain that Dr. Leila Pirhaji is the founder and CEO at ReviveMed. and fails WP:CORPDEPTH. You also appear to be a little confused because, if you read the rationale for nomination above, you'd understand that the Leila Pirhaji AfD which you say was closed as speedy keep was was not the result of a consensus reached by the community but a result of the withdrawal of the nomination because the article was changed from an article on Leila to this article on the company, ReviveMed. And .. while we're looking at the older AfD and seeing as how you've mentioned the article creator, I find this: Admit it is maybe too soon. - Jesswade88. HighKing⁺⁺ 18:39, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: An directory-like page on an unremarkable private company. Significant RS coverage not found; what comes up is passing mentions and / or WP:SPIP. Does not meet WP:NCORP / WP:CORPDEPTH. Too soon per review of available sources. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:26, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete both the CEO (under whose name the page was originally created) and the company lack Notability. huji—TALK 18:39, 14 August 2018 (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.