Talk:UrgentRx

Contested deletion
This page should not be speedily deleted because... The page contains only unbiased, cited, fact-based information. A cited reason for the original page deletion was "...no notability for the company or the products." UrgentRx is backed by multiple billionaire investors and has appeared on TV shows "The View" and "The Doctors" as well as being featured in articles from CNBC, The New York Times, Entrepreneur (magazine), FOX Business, and CNN Money. I believe, without a doubt, the company is substantial, notable enough, and deserving of a page. Please reconsider the deletion of this page. Thank you --SGuberud (talk) 20:35, 20 February 2014 (UTC)SGuberud

Conflict of interest
Editor has a very obvious conflict of interest here. I've tagged the article and this page accordingly. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 13:24, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

I won't deny my association with UrgentRx, however I don't see any conflict of interest here. The page seems to be unbiased and written with a neutral point of view. I'm more than happy to discuss any conflict of interest issues you find. SGuberud (talk) 23:02, 24 February 2014 (UTC)SGuberud
 * Yes, that's one of the problems with conflict-of-interest editing - you can be too close to the topic to see how entirely promotional and unencyclopaedic the content appears to others. Anyway, thanks for acknowledging your COI. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 23:26, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

I completely agree how that could be the case in some instances. However, I feel that my additions are in no way "entirely promotional and unencyclopaedic." What about this page exactly warrants deletion? Thanks SGuberud (talk) 20:19, 26 February 2014 (UTC)SGuberud


 * That's not the point. Wikipedia permits companies to write their own articles about themselves, and also allows that point to be noted in the article and on the article talk page. That is correctly noted. Whether UrgentRx's rep feels the UrgentRx article is good or not good is immaterial. Coretheapple (talk) 21:34, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

So is the article still being considered for deletion? SGuberud (talk) 17:52, 3 March 2014 (UTC)SGuberud