Talk:Clover Health

Note
See Articles for deletion/Clover Health. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:46, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Note that the above-linked AfD discussion took place well before the company was public, and as would be expected by WP:LISTED there is significant secondary source coverage of Clover Health as a public company. UnitedStatesian (talk) 04:39, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

Responding to editor AfC comments
Hi editors, thank you for your comments. I thought I would respond to both Nomadicghumakkad and Robert McClenon in the same post for the sake of simplicity.

First, with regard to the question on which 3 sources best demonstrate significant coverage, I would submit this Bloomberg article, this New York Times article, and this CNBC article. I'd also suggest this Bloomberg article as another example of significant coverage from a source on the reliable sources list. HighKing, Nomadicghumakkad suggested I ping you to review these as well. I hope you'll find that these sources not only meet the requirements of the corporate notability guidelines but also represent a range of viewpoints.

Second, with regard to Robert McClenon's concerns about reference bombing, writing with a non-neutral POV, and not not replying on third-party sources, I'll try to respond to each to get some additional clarity:


 * Reference bombing: Reviewing the link you've provided, I don't feel the four examples of citation overkill apply. I've identified sources which demonstrate significant coverage, offering much more detail than passing mentions or "namechecks". There are a few instances in which citations are used to confirm specific claims (examples: employment numbers, locations of the company headquarters and major satellite offices, and the federal government verifying our involvement as a direct contracting entity with Medicare), but I do not believe the draft is built on such sources. Also, the draft does not name drop reliable sources or use statements like "This topic was covered by The New York Times."
 * Lack of reliance on third-party sources: 32 of the 35 sources are third-party. Only 3 primary sources (one of which is from the federal government, not from Clover Health) are used for small details. If I have misinterpreted these sourcing requirements, please let me know. There are some sources in this draft which reference statements made by Clover Health, but I think you will find with a cursory review that those statements are bounded by independent reporting.
 * Non-neutral POV: I did my best to ensure that I was representing simple facts without embellishment and without language that would be considered promotional. I also included facts in this draft that are somewhat negative about the company in such a manner I felt was compliant with Wikipedia policies on undue weight and balance. If I have misinterpreted those guidelines, can you please explain to me where specifically I went wrong and how I might go about fixing them? As it stands I am uncertain where exactly the issue lies.

I'm happy to address specific concerns and of course I invite editors to update the draft as needed before taking it live. I would like an opportunity to go through the consensus building process and work on making improvements. I would also like to resubmit this draft for community review soon if no one does so on my behalf.

I thank you all for your time and feedback. EmmaB15 (talk) 21:07, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
 * User:EmmaB15 - First, when I referred to third-party coverage, I did not mean that the sources were primary rather than secondary. I was referring to the text of the article, and meant that the content of the article was based on what the company says about itself, rather than what third parties such as business publications have written about it.  Second, I did not review the 35 or 40 sources, because I said that there were too many of them.  What I said is that, if you reference-bomb your draft with 35 or 40 sources, this decreases the likelihood that it will be accepted, because it deters a reviewer from evaluating the sources.  That is why I said to specify between three and five sources to highlight.  Third, I am aware that you did the best that you could to write neutrally.  I am also aware that you did not write neutrally.  It is difficult for conflict of interest editors to write neutrally, and I cannot give you any specific advice on how to do better.  Robert McClenon (talk) 18:45, 19 October 2021 (UTC)


 * Hey, see comments below on sources provided:

- Doesn't seem in-depth. - Funding announcement. Doesn't contribute to notability. Could count towards WP:CORPDEPTH if we were being liberal. Very marginal. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 20:04, 19 October 2021 (UTC)


 * Thank you, both, for your feedback so far. Robert McClenon, you've said "The burden is on the submitter to show that this draft is better than the deleted article," do you know if the old version exists somewhere so I can compare the two? I can also provide an overview of coverage received since the article was deleted nearly a year ago, if that's helpful. I'm also curious if you have any advice on where I might go for specific feedback on the tone of the draft?


 * Robert and Nomadicghumakkad, can either of you point out some examples of claims or sources that should be removed in order to make the draft easier for review? Similarly, if any of the sources are inappropriate for Wikipedia, please let me know so I can see if alternatives can be used instead. I really appreciate your help. EmmaB15 (talk) 16:05, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Below is the old article text, so you can review it. I saved it after voting keep, when it appeared there was a growing backlash against the company. Also see the deletion discussion Articles for deletion/Clover Health. Many of my points are still valid for your version, but unless the burst of coverage for the meme stock incident sways others, you're going to have an uphill battle. I'll take a look next week and see if I can help with the tone and content, and perhaps cull some sources. TimTempleton (talk) (cont)  00:08, 30 October 2021 (UTC)


 * TimTempleton Thanks for the old article text and for taking a look at the sources and tone in my draft! Look forward to your feedback. EmmaB15 (talk) 16:11, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I cleaned it up - you'll have a better chance submitting it now. Good luck! TimTempleton (talk) (cont)  01:52, 12 November 2021 (UTC)


 * Thanks for taking a look! I'll take it back to my team and we'll look at resubmitting at some point in the future! EmmaB15 (talk) 17:34, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
 * @Timtempleton, Andrew Toy has transitioned into the role of Chief Executive Officer of Clover Health effective January 1, 2023. Vivek Garipalli is now Executive Chairperson. Is this source acceptable? https://www.healthcaredive.com/news/clover-health-andrew-toy-ceo/629168/ EmmaB15 (talk) 19:12, 4 January 2023 (UTC)