Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brightline (company)


 * 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. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 19:36, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

Brightline (company)

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

Company doesn't seem to meet WP:NCORP - insufficient coverage meeting the WP:CORPDEPTH threshold. MrsSnoozyTurtle 07:14, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Health and fitness, Companies,  and California. AllyD (talk) 08:03, 20 January 2023 (UTC)


 * Keep - Not sure how this doesn't meet WP:CORPDEPT! Many of the citations arer very deep. For example:
 * - Fast Company - Full article about them + There is a 2nd Fast Company Article that has further info and ranks them as The 10 most innovative health companies of 2022
 * - fiercehealthcare.com - Full article about them, lot's info about company provided. Not just an announcement.
 * - Bloomberg- Full article about them, lot's info about company
 * - bizjournals.com- Lot's info, make sure to check all 3 pages from the bottom.
 * - bhbusiness.com - several paragraphs of info about company
 * - fiercehealthcare.com- deep coverage Threevian (talk) 06:53, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Salvio giuliano 09:28, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Available sources do not appear to support notability per WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:ORGIND. For example:
 * Brightline’s behavioral telehealth platform is giving kids—and their caregivers—peace of mind (FastCompany, Mar. 8, 2022) - this 4-graf article begins with a focus on CEO Naomi Allen, her personal experience, and a quote from her. It then mentions the 2019 formation of the company, the 2021 expansion, and has another Allen quote. Then there is a 3-sentence overview: 1) of the product, 2) insurance coverage, and 3) "Through these relationships, Brightline will be available to employees at 33 companies." The final graf begins with "Allen says", includes what "the company plans" and more of what Allen says. WP:ORGIND notes Often a related party produces a narrative that is then copied, regurgitated, and published in whole or in part by independent parties.
 * The 10 most innovative health companies of 2022 (FastCompany, Mar. 8, 2022) is an example of trivial coverage per WP:NCORP because it is inclusion in lists of similar organizations, particularly in "best of", "top 100", "fastest growing" or similar lists.
 * Startups Brightline, Brightside Health spark big investments for virtual behavioral health (Fiercehealthcare, Mar. 30, 2022) - this is trivial coverage of a capital transaction, such as raised capital, "The company plans to use the new investment", "Brightline also plans to", "said Naomi Allen, co-founder and CEO of Brightline" and a limited superficial description of the company, and similar trivial, superficial, nonindependent coverage of another company Brightside Health.
 * KKR Values Behavioral-Health Startup Brightline at $705 Million (Bloomberg, Mar. 29, 2022) - this is trivial coverage of an announcement of a capital transaction, such as raised capital and quarterly [...] financial results, based on "Brightline [...] said", "Allen said", "said Allen", "Allen sees", "Allen said", "Allen said", "Allen said", "Allen said", and "Johnny Kim, a KKR director who has joined Brightline’s board, said in an emailed statement", without critical coverage, so this is also not WP:ORGIND.
 * Brightline scored $105M in a new round. It's the latest funding for a startup founded by a Livongo vet (bizjournals.com, Mar. 30, 2022) - this is a low-quality promotional site, with similar trivial coverage of an announcement of a capital transaction, such as raised capital, and statements from Allen about Brightline and her past career, then promotional/trivial coverage about a funding announcement at another company, a list of other companies founded by people Allen used to work with, and a closing quote from Allen. This is also not the significant coverage of the company itself needed for WP:CORPDEPTH.
 * Pediatric Behavioral Health Provider Brightline Launches Virtual Coaching Program to Support Parents (Behavioral Health Business, Apr. 13, 2022) - this is trivial coverage of a product or a product line launch that links to and appears largely based on the press release published the day before.
 * GV leads Brightline's $72M boost to expand virtual therapy services for kids, teens (FierceHealthcare, Jun 16, 2021) - this is more trivial coverage about a capital transaction, such as raised capital, a statement about the company "according to Brightline", information from "Brightline’s own survey", "according to Brightline executives", a large quote "said Naomi Allen, Brightline CEO and co-founder in a statement", "according to the company", "said Ben Robbins, psychiatrist and venture partner at GV who is joining Brightline’s board of directors", "Brightline also announced", and a brief superficial description of a product or a product line launch and expansion. This is also not WP:ORGIND.
 * Per the sources, WP:NCORP and WP:PROMO, delete seems appropriate at this time. Beccaynr (talk) 06:39, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Response: I don't agree with most of your assessment. Many of these even tough are announcement they also contained more info that are not announcements and are about what the company does. The subjects of the articles may give the impression that they are just announcements but if you read the full article you will see that they also contain detailed info about the company, hence meeting WP:CORDEPTH.  Including:
 * - Fast Company - Full article about them + There is a 2nd Fast Company Article that has further info and ranks them as The 10 most innovative health companies of 2022 - The policy says when there are more than 1 article on one website, you may combine them to get a more inpdeth article. Combined there are 4 paragraphs of info about the company that meet criteria of not being an announcement or quotation.
 * - fiercehealthcare.com - More than 6 paragraphs of info about them, including what company does and what its prior name was.
 * - Bloomberg- Another editor below agreed that this is an acceptable article. Not including quotations, there is 7 paragraphs of info.
 * - bizjournals.com- Counting 5 Paragraphs, not announcements, not quotes
 * - bhbusiness.com - You say its based on a press release, but if this was the case, then almost all articles are. For example, Microsoft announces on a press release that they just released Windows 10 then hundreds of publications write about it. Does that mean that none of the publications can be used?? Don't just come up with your own policy as to what is a press release. If it does not say it is a press release then it's not. If you know of specific Wikipedia Guideline that says articles written based on a press release are not acceptable, then please share it here. When a credible publication writes a story based on press release, it is assumed they do their due-diligence to verify the info, so it is no longer considered primary info.
 * Threevian (talk) 00:13, 31 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I assure you I did read the full articles, and did not base my analysis only on the headlines, and I hope the descriptions I provided above helps demonstrate that, e.g. the very promotional (according to our policy) Bloomberg source that is nearly entirely based on statements by the founder (including paraphrased content attributed to the founder), which is not usable for supporting notability per WP:CORPDEPTH nor WP:ORGIND, as explained above.
 * The quality of sources declines from there, and WP:SIRS states Individual sources must be evaluated separately and independently of each other and meet the four criteria below to determine if a source qualifies towards establishing notability - there is no provision for combining sources similar to the WP:BASIC section of WP:BIO, and a combination here would still be trivial coverage per WP:CORPDEPTH, as explained above.
 * With regard to the low-quality sources, these are a hallmark of a lack of notability per WP:CORP, and note that bizjournals.com is part of American City Business Journals, which describes itself as offering "business leaders many avenues for making connections and gives them a competitive edge locally, regionally and nationally. ACBJ is the premier media solutions platform for companies that target business decision-makers" - this is a promotional medium, with "brands" of platforms, so it is a very low-quality source to rely on for supporting notability, especially per the WP:ORGCRIT section the WP:NCORP guideline, which includes, The guideline, among other things, is meant to address some of the common issues with abusing Wikipedia for advertising and promotion. This article looks, walks, and quacks like an advertisement, because of the low-quality sources and the lack of significant coverage of the company itself. We need more than promotional announcements and coverage to avoid having articles that mimic advertising from the company, regardless of their size.
 * I also assure you that I am not making up policy about the use of press releases. The WP:ORGIND guideline includes, Independence of the content (or intellectual independence): the content must not be produced by interested parties. 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. Per this guideline, we do not assume fact-checking has occurred, and this appears even more important with low-quality sources that indicate their reliance on narratives produced by the company. For example, bhbusiness.com offers a branded content strategy that includes articles, has one reporter listed on its small staff, and regurgitates content directly from company personnel, its website, and a press release, in the post bylined to a guest contributor. This is not a credible publication, which is even more reason to not presume fact-checking has occurred in a source promoting the company's perspective on its products and services.
 * Beccaynr (talk) 17:27, 31 January 2023 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.


 * Delete, the Blomberg coverage is probably the best, but as explained, it's still not sufficient. The rest are as explained, not suitable. Oaktree b (talk) 15:08, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I get more coverage on a railway company associated with Richard Branson than about this enterprise. Oaktree b (talk) 15:10, 27 January 2023 (UTC)


 * Comment: I have added a few more citations. Notably, these ones are indepth and have deep coverage about the company:
 * - hitconsultant.net - It's an announcement but also has a lot of details about the company.
 * - Forbes - Announcement but also detailed
 * - healthcareoutlook - one long paragraph of info about the company. Threevian (talk) 00:18, 31 January 2023 (UTC)


 * Delete There's a different standard applied to references used to support information and facts within an article and those used to establish notability. For notability, we need to see significant articles about the *company* and the content must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. Regurgitated press releases and announcements are fine for the first use but fail the criteria for the second. I agree with the analysis of the sources above. None of the sources whose content can be described as "announcements" but which contain "other information" contain "Independent Content". There's no original/independent opinion/analysis/fact checking/investigation as required. Also, while policy says articles can be combined in order to create a more in-depth article, this does not apply when examining sources for meeting the criteria for establishing notability - check out WP:SIRS. Looking at the last three references above, the hitconsultant.net source above is a regurgitation of their Press Release and the company blog post. The next from Forbes from a staff writer relies entirely on an interview with the CEO. It is a puff profile and has no "Independent Content" whatsoever. The third reference from the Healthcare Outlook source (no attributed journalist) lists 10 Healthtech companies with a short descriptive paragraph on each. This topic company is described in 6 sentences and is a simple summary/description. It is neither significant nor in-depth. None of the references meet NCORP/GNG criteria for establishing notability.  HighKing++ 16:02, 31 January 2023 (UTC)


 * 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.