Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1mg


 * 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. Consensus has tended towards keeping the article; significantly HighKing switched from the strongest "delete" argument to a "keep" one. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  19:22, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

1mg

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Non notable company fails GNG. Darktaste (talk) 12:07, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep: You seem to be a new editor. Please refer WP:GNG, WP:NCORP. Its easily passing notability criteria. Check, , ,  and many more. Even if you do WP:Before you will get many sources. Myconcern (talk) 12:25, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Blocked for WP:UPE. MER-C 14:30, 29 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 14:14, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 14:14, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 14:14, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Keep: As per above keep arguments. Also it has a mention in Entrepreneur. Lesliechin1 (talk) 08:33, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment: Ok, It is notable but Entrepreneur is not very reliable site. I want to see more opinion. Darktaste (talk) 12:33, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete - yet another attempt to spam this company, see Draft:1mg. MER-C 14:30, 29 May 2021 (UTC)
 * This AFD seems to be attracting meatpuppets too. MER-C 19:07, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep Don't know about spam but there is regular news about 1mg. For example, , ,  Fishandnotchips (talk) 11:10, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 03:43, 1 June 2021 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Keep Socks, COI, UPE are all concerns but the company is, fundamentally, notable as per WP:ORG. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 12:15, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete and WP:SALT this title as well. As MER-C pointed this is nothing yet another attempt to spam this company, see Draft:1mg. Sanketio31 (talk) 11:37, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep I am with Alexandermcnabb as per, , , and SPI Investigation requested by Sanketio31. Sonofstar (talk) 13:12, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 23:58, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete per Sanketio31 Mardetanha (talk) 14:17, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete Changed to keep below WP:NCORP requires multiple sources (at least two) of deep or significant coverage with in-depth information *on the company* and (this bit is important!) containing "Independent Content". "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. That means, nothing that relies on company information or announcements or interviews, etc. None of the references in the article meet the criteria. Of the four links provided above by Sonofstar:
 * Times of India is a mention with no in-depth info on the company failing WP:CORPDEPTH
 * Mint is based entirely on an announcement by the company and information provided by the company (obvious when the text "slips up" and says "are suitable for *our* customer base" :-) failing WP:ORGIND
 * Business Standard has no in-depth info on the company, fails WP:CORPDEPTH
 * Entrepreneur is entirely based on a company announcement and info provided by the company, fails WP:ORGIND.
 * All of the articles I can find are generated from company information, essentially all part of the same echo chamber and I have been unable to find suitable refs. Topic fails WP:NCORP.  HighKing++ 12:52, 10 June 2021 (UTC)


 * Keep Based on google search & this Inc42 news. Now Here 1mg is having International coverage regarding ban and a reply to Indian Govt to uplift the ban. Frequently in news regarding company merger also, I support sources of  instead of  . 1друг (talk) 15:51, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Even though I've pointed out precise reasons why those references fail our guidelines, as well as links to the guidelines themselves, you then post an Inc42 reference which relies completely on an interview with the CEO (fails ORGIND), a Quartz reference on the ban in India on selling medicines online and which doesn't even mention the topic company, an Entrackr reference that discusses a report by Kalagato but does not link to the report or provide a reference to the report, fails WP:RS as a reliable source and finally Times of India reference based on an announcement (just like similar articles in TechCrunch, Business Standard, etc. Just announced today too, isn't it remarkable how many editors have been trying to pump the value of this company and increase it's exposure just as it being rescued with a buyout. Such a coincidence. Still fails our notability standards though.  HighKing++ 17:43, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

List of companies bought by 1mg as per reliable sources:
 * Meddin
 * Homeobuy
 * Dawailelo
 * Droplet
 * Mediangel

If you are in India then might know that it is similar to Flipkart, Uber, Paytm, in the health Industry. 20-25 reliable, independent, in-depth sources are good enough with various global, national, rural events to prove notability. I suggest editors to please look for the sources by yourself because many might be available in print, Hindi, English, and other regional languages. Still, a lot can be added to this new page if given the proper time. Sonofstar (talk) 12:17, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Response Spamming this AfD with a large uncollapsed table containing 20 links won't win you many friends, especially when someone has to go through them, one at a time, and then discover that not a single reference meets NCORP requirements. You don't appear to have grasped precisely what is required for a reference to meet the criteria for establishing notability. So, rather than you insisting that all of these references meet NCORP requirements despite being shown why they don't, how about in future you pick the best reference (any single one, not another bunch) and we'll take an in-depth look at it. You can point to those parts of that article that you believe contains in-depth information on the company and also has original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject and we'll comment.  HighKing++ 20:50, 12 June 2021 (UTC)


 * Business Standard I agree many of these sources were probably not meeting all pointers like Quartz. User:HighKing Thanks for your time. But I also wanted to highlight that there is WP:SUSTAINED and the news over a long period of time is intellectually independent on the basis of events happening. I think this particular source can’t be discarded and I urge you to relook at it. Here is what I think:
 * The article has an independent opinion, analysis, and investigation. It includes an IMA statement raising concerns over online pharmacies. If this was meant to be a promo piece, the journalist won’t include this. A number of facts are likely to have come from the company. Did the Journalist fact check them (like google downloads etc), we can’t predict that but might just also assume that they did because Business Standard is surely reputed? Also notice that the journalist says 1mg claims it is compliant with the Drugs and Cosmetics Rules. The use of word claim signifies that the journalist is careful to publish what they can't verify and hence might be safe to assume that they maintained integrity with other facts as well.
 * With the internet, journalists can easily access people/companies they are writing about it is highly common to have their opinions etc included unless it is controversial or badmouthing. I will request a bit of your help here to give me few examples of online companies started after the internet boom having press about them and that doesn't have a hint that the two parties were in touch. Sonofstar (talk) 05:29, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Response, you say the article has "independent opinion, analysis, and investigation". OK, let's take a look for anything that meets *both* WP:CORPDEPTH *and* WP:ORGIND in the same sentence/paragraph. You refer to an IMA statement raising concerns over online pharmacies - this statement doesn't even mention 1mg so it is a generic statement. Further, the use of the word "claims" shows that the "claim" emanated from the company - that would have been a perfect opportunity for the authors to provide an independent opinion but they passed. And yes, with the internet, journalists have an easier time of it for researching information but the entire point of the stricter interpretation of notability requirements contained in WP:NCORP is to weed out articles that are based almost entirely on company-generated information. Those articles are essentially "secondary" marketing, just repeating the messages and opinions that the company want to put "out there". Nowhere in the article can I see a single sentence that is clearly "Independent Content" (as per ORGIND definition) except perhaps for the very last sentence where it says "Break-even will have to wait for a few years, considering the investment 1mg is making in technology and expansion". That isn't enough though. the "Expert Take" at the end of the article doesn't even mention 1mg which would have been an ideal opportunity for an expert to provide an independent opinion. Finally, it isn't whether the journalists were in touch with the company or officials or looked at the website, that can be perfectly fine, but we then want to journalist/expert to provide their analysis/opinion/thoughts/whatever on whatever information they've been provided. That isn't happening in this article or in any of the others linked above either. Some good places to look for "Independent Coverage" include a case study in a book (with the author's analysis), analyst reports containing an opinion on the company (not just repeating reported earnings or funding announcements), an article that compares this company and their methods, models, etc, with a different company in the same field. <b style="font-family: Courier; color: darkgreen;"> HighKing</b>++ 21:47, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Response Thanks for the detailed response. I agree on various points but I also disagree with you on others. I think it would depend on how we read and interpret and it's fair to have different opinions. I see some other interesting facts said by the journalist, helps people order medicines and also provides information and suggestions on cheaper generic substitutes. I didn't see this information anywhere else and seems to be an independent observation. And similarly, The company does not process requests for Schedule X and other habit-forming drugs.. What you found promising, that is Break-even will have to wait for a few years, considering the investment 1mg is making in technology and expansion., I actually found it promotional. To me, it read like the company is trying to use expansion as an excuse to justify the delay in a breakeven. Do you see what I am saying? I still think this article would contribute to notability but that's just my opinion. You and other editors can surely differ on this and I respect that. A healthy discussion only helps understand different viewpoints better.


 * I am happy you talked about the comparison. . This article (I couldn't access it because it needs a subscription. I believe you have it.), has an overall observation on what's happening right now (or was) in the online pharmacy market. All other online pharmacies were merging or being acquired but 1mg was going solo (they later were bought out by Tata is a different story). But I still feel this piece talks about the company in the context of the industry and independently. But I was not able to read it and you were, so you will have a more informed opinion on it. I might just urge you to relook at the context I defined above. Since other editors can't access this, we will only have a limited opinion on the utility of this source.


 * As you said case studies, I found this link which leads to QYResearch having a complete case study with a large portion dedicated to 1mg. I can only access the table of contents from now that includes 5 sections on the company: 1MG Company Details, 1MG Business Overview and Its Total Revenue, 1MG Online Pharmaceuticals Introduction, 1MG Revenue in Online Pharmaceuticals Business (2015-2020), 1MG Recent Development. So there is evidence that such a detailed case study exists. We don't know what's written there yet. I have filled up their form to access it; let's see if we get that in time. I reckon many more such case studies would exist but we won't have access to those. Another report mentions 1mg in passing in the summary but might have more in the full report (which is available on purchase) . Also found an article referring to this report and then discussing the company a bit with other players here.


 * I think this source at Indian Express will surely comfort you . It says But keeping in mind the fact that we do not have a proper guideline or regulation to control the sale of drugs online till date, this can be termed as both an advantage and a disadvantage of the app. While it is simple and convenient especially for elderly and bedridden patients, there are high chances of drugs being mixed up or misused. Also, the drugs delivered online do not come with instructions or assurance of quality. A balanced view and opinion and the article also discusses other health apps.


 * This one also has a very detailed analysis, giving out a complete analysis and Journey of the company along with others in the market.


 * Another article discusses and analyses their financials and the title focusses on 76% higher losses. The data is attributed to the company filings but the analysis and reporting on it are independent.


 * I think with the QYResearch case study, The Indian Express article, and The Business Bar Article we might be close to WP:THREE. The Inc42, Business Standard, ET (that talks about 1mg going solo) further supports. Sonofstar (talk) 06:39, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Response The QYResearch analyst report is a good reference that meets the criteria. Likewise the redseer analyst report contains a case study on 1mg (chapter 3.6) and is a good reference that meets the criteria. I've also found two reports with Frost & Sullivan analysts and while those reports attribute the sourcing of the data and information to the respective company websites, the subsequent analsysis is and detail meets the requirements. Based on these new references, I'll strike my Delete !vote and change to Keep. <b style="font-family: Courier; color: darkgreen;"> HighKing</b>++ 11:58, 15 June 2021 (UTC)


 * Keep In light of the new references including analyst reports and case studies, there are sufficient references that meet the criteria for establishing notability. I've struck my previous Delete !vote above. <b style="font-family: Courier; color: darkgreen;"> HighKing</b>++ 11:58, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep per HighKing's summation. PassesWP:NCORP,4meter4 (talk) 03:33, 16 June 2021 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. <b style="color:red">Please do not modify it.</b> 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.