Jump to content

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

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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. A lot of the keep arguments are at best optimistic with regard to how closely their arguments accord with policy and we have a pretty good consensus that the current sourcing fails to pass GNG. Spartaz Humbug! 21:52, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

EverlyWell

[edit]
AfDs for this article:

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

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)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. GSS 💬 17:30, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. GSS 💬 17:30, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 17:38, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 18:21, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 18:27, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 19:03, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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 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)[reply]
It is likely not "quackery" because the products of this company are now Carried by retail giant Target and Retail giant Walmart. Also carried at drugstore giant CVS. Lightburst (talk) 19:55, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Major retailers also carry homeopathy remedies and healing crystals, so being sold at Walmart doesn't really mean it's not quackery. Not that that has any bearing on whether the article should be deleted or not. SpicyMilkBoy (talk) 21:07, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • A health test must be accurate for a Drug Store giant to carry it. You actually believe this is true?! Levivich 19:18, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
Counter WP:CRYSTALBALL Wikipedia doesn't care what is "poised" to do anything, only what is already notable. If this company becomes notable in the future, it can have an article on it. Until then, delete. --Danielklein (talk) 23:53, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
WP:G4 does not apply to this article. It is not substantially unchanged and there has been new information after the first AfD. Lightburst (talk) 21:12, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
They are all experienced users, and I believe their comments are coming after reviewing the new information about the company not because I have pinged them. Regarding WP:NORUSH, it's not a policy, and it does not apply here becasue the article was recreated in November 2019, under a different title to evade the protection at EverlyWell. GSS 💬 05:02, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@GSS: I looked through your previous AfD nominations and it is not your practice to ever ping !voters from previous AfDs. I have no idea why you did it this time - esp since you pinged editors from a year ago. But it got this AfD off to head shaking start and sunk the AfD rather quickly. Lightburst (talk) 06:00, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Lightburst, GSS has pinged previous participants before [1]. Nor is that unusual, I've been pinged several times by other editors making 2nd nominations, particularly for articles with complex histories like this one. Note also that GSS pinged every participant on the previous AfD who wasn't a sockpuppet. The fact that we all opined "delete" that time is immaterial, and I don't think it's fair to say we can't be trusted to judge this new version dispassionately. Besides, the first two delete !votes here are from editors who had not participated in the first AfD. Voceditenore (talk) 17:33, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
We can go round and round. In that AfD that you highlight they pinged participants from an AfD which ended in no consensus exactly two months prior. This was pinging editors from an AfD which ended a full calendar year ago. And you can see I participate in hundreds of AfDs. In my experience this is not done. It is not normal, it is not recommended, it is unusual. I would point out that, the nominator does not normally do this because I looked. It is not best practice. Lightburst (talk) 17:50, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
We shall have to agree to disagree, but one could argue that you listing this AfD at the Article Rescue Squadron – Rescue list with the comment that this AfD "feels rigged" by the nominator seems a lot more like canvassing than those pings do. Just saying. Voceditenore (talk) 18:30, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The ARS notified to improve an article. But the members probably peeked in to see this is a lost cause and a time waste. You can look through the records and archives on ARS to educate yourself about the mission rather than casting aspersions. By the way you are not the first, and won't be the last. Lightburst (talk) 18:40, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I am thoroughly familiar with ARS. I even got six of these in my 13 years on Wikipedia (for what it's worth). Listing an article for rescue is one thing. Commenting there that its AfD is rigged another. It's entirely inappropriate. Voceditenore (talk) 19:15, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • Keep WP might be the only balanced source for consumers to find out the dangers of this company. The article can be cleaned up and the fringe unsourced parts removed. I am willing to make a start on the page. Also WP:NOTPAPER, more criticism will come up over time if the company is not doing peer reviewed studies.--Akrasia25 (talk) 19:55, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
If the article is kept than a cleanup may be required, but AfD is not cleanup. For our purposes here we cannot assume that the topic will accrue more coverage in the future (WP:CRYSTAL), as we are only considering on and off-wiki coverage that exists at present. SamHolt6 (talk) 20:53, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
From US Magazine: Get the Metabolism Test (originally $89) on sale for just $71 from Everlywell for a limited time with code: RESULTS20 at checkout! That's an advertisement, not reliable independent coverage. SpicyMilkBoy (talk) 21:11, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The first time it was created was in December 2018 by Neerajmadhuria72014 (now blocked for UPE and socking). It was draftified and deleted in January 2019 per Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:EverlyWell. The second version was created in January 2019 by Mohamed Ouda (now blocked for UPE and socking) and deleted in January 2019 per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/EverlyWell. Voceditenore (talk) 18:17, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately editors see paid editing and socking and some reflexively !vote delete. How about we debate the merits of this company having an article. Paid editing and socking does not invalidate the company's notability. The article was already tagged for paid editing. Lightburst (talk) 18:40, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That was not the point of my comment. The point is that the current version is substantially different from the UPE ones and should be judged on its merits, not on the fate or creators of its previous incarnations. There is no evidence that this version is connected in any way to those versions, but the current state of the history does not make that clear. Voceditenore (talk) 19:23, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I agree its fate needs decided on its own merit. After that however, what do we do? If it is deleted, I believe it should be salted. Being substantially different doesn't clear it from UPE accusations. It could just mean it was written by a different paid editor and not someone from the company. Not making a direct accusation, just pointing out that we cannot say one way or another it is (or isn't) UPE. --CNMall41 (talk) 21:48, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Gogolwold (talk) 12:50, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"...whats there reads like a press releases" Seriously? This makes me think people voting here are not actually reading the article at all. Fully half of the lead is criticism: "The company's test kits are not approved by the FDA. Multiple medical doctors question the necessity and usefulness of these tests. IgG tests are not accurate enough to be regularly used by allergists or medical doctors in diagnosing allergies and sensitivities. The presence of IgG antibodies does not confirm an allergy but rather that the body has encountered that substance at some point in the recent past." This reflects the article main body text. What company would write a press release anything like THIS?? RobP (talk) 17:22, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
well there’s canvassing in the nomination, so you can’t expect much better unfortunately. It’s a pile on. Gogolwold (talk) 17:38, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
canvassing in the nomination.. are you serious? GSS 💬 17:42, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
what else would you call pinging everyone who voted delete last time? Gogolwold (talk) 17:47, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
There was only one user to !vote keep in the previous AfD and FYI that user was blocked for undisclosed paid editing. This is common practice not very unusual and as Voceditenore pointed out above the first two delete !votes here are from editors who had not participated in the first AfD. GSS 💬 17:57, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@GSS:@Fitindia:@CNMall41: I have not yet seen an explanation as to why some of the DELETE voters are claiming the article reads like a press release (or should be evaluated as a COI/UPE issue), when this is unarguably not the case -- as I pointed out just above. RobP (talk) 19:20, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I don't recall saying that it "reads like a press release." I also didn't say it needs evaluated for COI. I left several comments which stated it appears to have a COI based on its creation but that it was NOT a direct accusation (and the creator now appears blocked for such). My comments were basically what to do IF it is deleted, nothing else. I also stated it needs evaluated on its own merit outside of any COI so not sure why I got pinged. On another note, I am not sure anyone has addressed my comment about the need for WP:REFBOMBING. --CNMall41 (talk) 07:47, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
How frustrating! Before voting can you please READ the article and do a little research. The creator of this NEW version is obviously NOT a paid editor and the page as currently written is NOT something that a company would want to have paid for. This is a BRAND NEW VERSION - quit talking about the older versions. OMG I can't even. Sgerbic (talk) 23:55, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Rubbish. The WSJ, Fortune and Bloomberg articles all pass WP:ORGCRITGogolwold (talk) 09:04, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry then... It seemed like you and others were saying this WP article looked like a press release. ("Lacks in-depth coverage and whats there reads like a press release") Others made that mistake as well, so I'm not sure it was all my fault for misconstruing comments of that variety here. OK then... so the issue is some of the citations used in this article read like a press release? Yes, I just looked again. A minority of the articles used as citations seem to be uncritical. But unless you and like minded folks here are stating otherwise, they seem to be independent of the subject. So what's the beef? If the media covers something positively it is not allowed? I don't see this stance as being a WP rule. In any case, those are the minority here, and used to established what the company's details and claims were/are. But they are countered by the much larger number of citations critical of it. And that is reflected in the tone of the entire article, including the lead. So, what is the problem then? Also, would not deleting some of the pro- material (if it is thought to be too much) be better than deleting the entire article? RobP (talk) 16:40, 6 February 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/EverlyWell_(2nd_nomination)&oldid=940326978"