Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cue Health (2nd nomination)


 * 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. Liz Read! Talk! 06:50, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

Cue Health
AfDs for this article:


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

See previous AfD for analysis of sources which show they fail to meet NCORP criteria for establishing notability. Renominating this for deletion now that two Keep !voters previously have been blocked as socks. Pinging previous participants, ,.  HighKing++ 17:55, 2 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Medicine,  and New York.  HighKing++ 17:55, 2 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment it's all about coverage for the test, not really much about the company. Unsure about this one... Oaktree b (talk) 18:13, 2 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete Fails WP:NCORP, per previous analysis of sources which haven't really changed.  scope_creep Talk  19:47, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep - I actually disagree on this one. I see a few significant mentions in independent RSes: AP News, STAT news, GenomeWeb, IllinoisPolicy, AdWeek, Bloomberg, TechCrunch, San Diego Union Tribune, NYT All these sources may in some way mention the test, but they are primarily focused on the company itself and its relationship with other notable organizations, funders, or people. The article looks like it may need some work from a DUE standpoint, but it is clearly notable per NCORP. — Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 13:04, 6 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment None of those references meet NCORP which requires "Independent Content" and [[WP:CORPDEPTH|in-depth information] *about* the company. Information provided by the company and repeated in an article is not original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. The references you mention fail in much the same was as the ones already in the article, they rely *entirely* on simply repeating the same information that was provided by the company and/or their execs or partners.
 * You mention the following:
 * An AP News reference that discusses a partnership with the NBA to conduct covid testing. That reference is dated the day after the press[ [https://pr.nba.com/cue-health-covid-19-testing-2021-22-nba-season/ releases from both the topic company and the NBA. It doesn't have anything significant or in-depth about the company, fails both NCORP and ORGIND.
 * This from STAT news as well as this from the San Diego Union Tribune are based on an announcement by the company - same announcement that was used for the basis of numerous other articles all dated on the same day (or even the day before) such as this in MedtechDive (note this acknowledges the "Cue Health Press Kit") and this in Fierce Biotech from the previous day and lots of others such as Genomeweb, Mobile Health News, Beckers Hospital Review, etc, etc. Same information, same publishing date or thereabouts, all based on a company press kit, fails ORGIND.
 * This from Genome web is based entirely on an announcement. Says it in the first sentence. It does not have any "Independent Content". Fails ORGIND.
 * This from IllinoisPolicy is a mere mention-in-passing and does not contain any in-depth information about the company, fails CORPDEPTH
 * This from AdWeek is once again an article based on PR. The date on the article is before the SuperBowl (so its not like the journalist saw the superbowl ad and said, Cool, lets so an article) and is the same date that the company issued a Press Release that was picked up by lots of publishers such as Bloomberg, AdAge, Mediapost, etc. Again, fails ORGIND.
 * The Bloomberg reference clearly states that the information is from an anonymous source and that both the topic company and the banks involved declined to comment. Leaving aside any WP:RS discussion, the article itself contains almost no in-depth information about the company (that wasn't provided previously by the company, e.g. Cue Health has said it's also...). Fails CORPDEPTH.
 * The TechCrunch reference has no in-depth information about the company - it focuses on a bug wit one of their devices - fails CORPDEPTH
 * This NYT reference has no in-depth information about the company, fails CORPDEPTH, but is also based entirely on a company announcement and fails ORGIND. Same date and information in numerous other articles including two that are already in the article - a CNBC reference and a Bloomberg reference. There's others too.
 * None of those references meet NCORP in my opinion but if you think some of the ones you've mentioned do meet NCORP, can you point to the part of the reference you think does?  HighKing++ 15:34, 6 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I think we fundamentally disagree on how to interpret the "in-depth" in WP:CORPDEPTH, particularly an overview, description, commentary, survey, study, discussion, analysis, or evaluation of the product, company, or organization and in regards to the NYT, Bloomberg, and AP sources. If we applied the standards of CORPDEPTH that you're applying here to all of wikipedia, very few articles would survive. Overall, it's relatively clear to me that nothing I say here is going to change your opinion on this. You may feel free to have the last word, I will not reply. Have a nice day. — Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 17:17, 9 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I'll respond only because you're misrepresenting what I've said. As per WP:SIRS, each reference must meet *all* the criteria. The references you've listed not only fail CORPDEPTH but also ORGIND - that is, once you remove the information provided by the company and/or the execs (as per ORGIND), the odd sentence or two that remains is insufficient to meet CORPDEPTH.  HighKing++ 11:05, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Arbitrarily0   ( talk ) 02:44, 10 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete: Fails WP:NCORP / WP:CORPDEPTH per 's analysis; sources are indeed in passing and / or WP:SPIP. I was not finding anything better. --K.e.coffman (talk) 16:32, 9 November 2022 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.


 * DeleteIt's all trivial mentions as explained above. They exist but we have nothing discussing them at length. Oaktree b (talk) 03:30, 10 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete. No support for notability, though I'll admit this one is marginal.  But what's written is generally about the one product they make, and they are one among many.  Nothing seems to be out there that meets WP:CORPDEPTH for the company specifically.  FalconK (talk) 10:01, 12 November 2022 (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.