Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Clover Health


 * 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.  Sandstein  14:11, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

Clover Health

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Fails WP:NCORP. Non-notable company.  scope_creep Talk  10:58, 31 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 11:46, 31 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 11:46, 31 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 11:46, 31 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 11:47, 31 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep - The NY Times [] just covered the company, stating that it had a $3.7 Billion valuation when it went public. There's also some other coverage in CNBC [], and the current sourcing is also decent. It sounds like it's not a very sexy business, but it's big. Just needs to be cleaned up a bit. TimTempleton (talk) (cont)  23:20, 4 November 2020 (UTC)
 * The first reference is an announcement and fails on WP:CORPDEPTH. The 2nd ref fails WP:ORGIND. Of the 11 references in the article, 9 of them fail WP:CORPDEPTH as being straight up announcements, the other is Medium which fails WP:SPIP, the last one seems to be a genuine reference. However, a single reference is insufficient to establish notability.   scope_creep Talk 

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 06:52, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete The NYT reference quoted above is based on a company announcement and therefore fails WP:ORGIND. I am unable to locate any significant coverage with in-depth information on the company and containing independent content, references to date fail the criteria for establishing notability, topic therefore fails GNG/WP:NCORP.  HighKing++ 17:22, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment To address both comments above, the NY Times' coverage is not just based on a company announcement. If you read the article, you'd see that the coverage includes a link to a March 2019 Wall Street Journal article when the company announced it was laying off 25% of its staff. [].  That negative news wasn't in the company announcement, suggesting that it's not so easy to write the Times' coverage off.  That makes three significant media entities I found covering a $3.9 billion company, in addition to what's there now.  And you can also find additional coverage including in Bloomberg [] about Clover's recently formed partnership with Walmart, the retailer's s first foray into the world of Medicare Advantage.  And BTW, that Bloomberg piece says Clover has 57,000 members in seven states.  $3.7 billion, 57,000 members - I don't see how this is a delete - it just needs to be cleaned up. And  - how did you sign your comment above without including a date? Is that a glitch? TimTempleton (talk)  (cont)  22:33, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Yip, looks like it.   scope_creep Talk  00:21, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Response This is the announcement on which the NYT article was written regarding the acquisition. The link to the WSJ article in relation to the layoffs is based on "an email to employees" which was seen by WSJ, so a PRIMARY source. Still fails for having no "Independent Content" as per WP:ORGIND. The CNBC article you linked to is also based on an announcement and quotes provided by the company which includes the company announcement in full at the end of the article. The article also refers to the same WSJ article as the NYT, the one based on the internal email. So the CNBC reference also fails WP:ORGIND for the same reasons as the NYT article. Finally, the Bloomberg article is also based on a company announcement - here's a link. Here are some other "articles" on the same topic which also fail ORGIND. Finally, yes, it is odd that a $3.7 billion enterprise doesn't appear to be covered (beyond a mention) in any analyst reports (normally good references and a "gimme" for notability) or that there doesn't appear to be any references that don't rely on what the company tells them. We need references that contain "Independent Content" as per WP:ORGIND. <b style="font-family: Courier; color: darkgreen;"> HighKing</b>++ 12:26, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
 * UTC)
 * Response I think the coverage is good, and it supports notability. Most reporting starts as company announcements - the Times et al don’t have enough people to lurk at a nearby restaurant and listen for scoops for every business. PR starts the process. I don’t like to use analyst reports as my sources since most of them solicit self-reported info and then try to sell back the reports. I’ve been pitched by analysts and have seen this firsthand. Even so, I’m not sure what analyst coverage there is with the decidedly unsexy field of Medicare Advantage. The sources I identified are pure and unquestioned journalism. I don’t think you’re saying that the info in the coverage is unverified and false. It’s fairly uncontroversial and just needs an overhaul to excise any COI contributions. <b style="color:#7F007F">TimTempleton</b> <sup style="color:#800080">(talk)  <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  20:53, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
 * No problem Tim. Just for clarification, you are correct, I am not making any comment on the veracity of the information provided in the coverage. I am merely applying the WP:NCORP guidelines, nothing more. Also as per those same guidelines, analyst reports are accepted as good references which is why I went looking for them. The NCORP guidelines are were tightened up considerably to clarify the types of acceptable references for establishing notability. <b style="font-family: Courier; color: darkgreen;"> HighKing</b>++ 13:36, 13 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Comment It doesn't support coverage. Lets examine the references.
 * This Health Tech Company Just Raised $160 Million] Fails WP:CORPDEPTH standard notices, brief announcements, and routine coverage, such as: of a capital transaction, such as raised capital
 * How this startup is trying to upend health insurance Dependent source. Fails WP:ORGIND.
 * The first investors in Uber just broke from tradition to make their largest investment ever Reads like a press-release. Fails WP:ORGIND, WP:SIRS.
 * Clover Health, A Data-Driven Health Insurance Startup, Raises $100M Fails WP:CORPDEPTH standard notices, brief announcements, and routine coverage, such as: of a capital transaction, such as raised capital
 * * Data-Driven Health Insurance Provider Clover Health Raises Another $35M Fails WP:CORPDEPTH standard notices, brief announcements, and routine coverage, such as: of a capital transaction, such as raised capital
 * * This Health Tech Company Just Raised $160 Million Fails WP:CORPDEPTH standard notices, brief announcements, and routine coverage, such as: of a capital transaction, such as raised capital
 * * San Francisco health insurance startup nabs $160 million in Series C funding Fails WP:CORPDEPTH standard notices, brief announcements, and routine coverage, such as: of a capital transaction, such as raised capital


 * All the references are the same and indicative of an private company starting up. The article completely fails WP:NCORP, specifically WP:SIRS, WP:CORPDEPTH. WP:ORGIND. It is typical run-of-the-mill branding and PR news. Non-notable. The other references are same.   scope_creep Talk  22:32, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
 * You put a lot of time into this argument but I just don’t see how any closer will delete an article about a $3.9 billion company that’s covered in the New York Times. I bet if the article wasn’t flagged we’d get more community participation in this AfD. <b style="color:#7F007F">TimTempleton</b> <sup style="color:#800080">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  14:38, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
 * It is a single reference and its an announcement which is explicitly against WP:NCORP policy.    scope_creep Talk  09:31, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

<div class="xfd_relist" style="border-top: 1px solid #AAA; border-bottom: 1px solid #AAA; padding: 0px 25px;"> Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Actually Tim you don't get points from trying to set boundaries on how the closer will see this. Relist to get more eyes on the soirce analysis

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz Humbug! 09:33, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete I'm not really sure what is worth keeping about this. The sources are lackluster company announcement type stuff, the article is written like an advert, and outside of that they seem to be an otherwise mostly run of the mill health care company. So, I see nothing here that passes either WP:NCORP, WP:GNG, or makes them notable by any other standard. --Adamant1 (talk) 09:42, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment Nobody else seemed to want to do it, so I cleaned up the article and added some more info from the sources. It reads better now and is less promotional. <b style="color:#7F007F">TimTempleton</b> <sup style="color:#800080">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  20:37, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment Not much in the way of a copyedit for an attempt at WP:HEY when little of the article has been changed, and still reads like a brochure, indistinguishable from the company website. The following reference was added:
 * * Walmart and Clover Health team up to offer Medicare Advantage plans Fails WP:ORGIND   scope_creep Talk  13:46, 18 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Comment - Additional sources added including another Fast Company article, and Bloomberg. It doesn't appear that WP:BEFORE was done. I also reread the Medium source that was criticized - it's very critical - I'm sure the company doesn't want that there. Looks very balanced now with multiple good independent sources. <b style="color:#7F007F">TimTempleton</b> <sup style="color:#800080">(talk)  <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  15:45, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
 * The two references that Tim has added are:
 * * What to know about Chamath Palihapitiya taking Clover Health public in a surprise merger It is essentially funding news, monies raised in two small paragraphs mentioned in relation to another outfit. Fails WP:CORPDEPTH explicitly.
 * * Medium is a self-published blogging site, used to generate affiliates by building quality links and improving your SEO score for your own site It explicitly fails WP:SPIP. Critical or or not, it is self-generated publishing.
 * * Clover Health In Talks to Go Public Via Social Capital III The deal values Clover at $3.7 billion.... the companies said. Another block of churnalistic news that fails WP:CORPDEPTH of a capital transaction, such as raised capital   scope_creep Talk  18:36, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

Comment Looking at it from a purely "encyclopedic content" perspective, all the article says in four pargraphs is that the raised some money and provides cheap insurance. Which is extremely run of the mill and promotional. 14 sources just for that is ridiculous. 5 of them is just cited for how they save money for their patients. Which shouldn't be included in any article about a company anyway. Period. So, this is still a sketch, extremely run of the mill, and totally deletable article. The 14 sources don't change that. Adamant1 (talk) 23:33, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
 * There's more to this article than that summary. I also disagree about numerous sources not demonstrating notability.  Both depth and breadth of coverage demonstrate notability. It's a lot harder to convince people that something isn't notable when multiple major media outlets cover the company. I just added even more coverage from the Wall Street Journal and CNBC. Readers can now read additional info about Clover's multi-billion dollar valuation, when they first hit unicorn status, how they went public via a SPAC, that they partnered with Walmart with that retailer's first foray into medical insurance, the challenges they faced trying to disrupt the insurance market, and how they had to pivot to replace some employees with people who had insurance and healthcare expertise. There are numerous other sources, but I don't want to ref stuff and bloat the article just to close this AfD.  This should be enough. If it's not, dear closer, ping me and I'll add more info. <b style="color:#7F007F">TimTempleton</b> <sup style="color:#800080">(talk)  <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  07:46, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
 * if it's a lot harder to convince people that something isn't notable when multiple major media outlets cover the company, then why are you trying so hard to convince people that it's notable when "multiple major media outlets have covered it"? --Adamant1 (talk) 02:56, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

Delete This article is basically an advertisement for a 3 Star Medicare plan. Plus, at least one of their executives have already had their Wikipedia articles deleted for being self-promotional (was basically their CV). Darth Xanax (talk) 03:17, 22 November 2020 (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.