Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/EverlyWell (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. A lot of the keep arguments are at best optimistic with regard to how closely their arguments accord with policy and we have a pretty good consensus that the current sourcing fails to pass GNG. Spartaz Humbug! 21:52, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

EverlyWell
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Not seeing anything better than the previously deleted version, still no in-depth coverage in reliable sources and no evidence of satisfying WP:NCORP. GSS &#x202F;&#128172; 17:30, 2 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. GSS &#x202F;&#128172; 17:30, 2 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. GSS &#x202F;&#128172; 17:30, 2 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 17:38, 2 February 2020 (UTC)


 * Pinging all the previous contestants to look at it again. . GSS &#x202F;&#128172; 17:41, 2 February 2020 (UTC)


 * Delete – nothing to show that WP:NCORP is met. As in the previous AfD, the only thing that's been said about them is that they received funding money. I have removed some of the company's own promotional/fringe claims from the article. --bonadea contributions talk 18:06, 2 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete. Forbes contributor pieces (same author) and PR, not enough for notability. But I think it's unfortunate, since the now-cleaned up "criticism" section and the lead saying "Their test kits are not currently approved by the FDA. Multiple medical doctors question the necessity and usefulness of these tests, particularly the food sensitivity test." are valuable information for people looking up EverlyWell online. Wikipedia is about the only online source with enough juice to bump up in search results against marketing and sales. Schazjmd   (talk)  18:13, 2 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 18:21, 2 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 18:27, 2 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Lightburst (talk) 18:56, 2 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 19:03, 2 February 2020 (UTC)


 * Still Delete. Stuff like this really needed to go. But what else is there? Does this pass any sort of 'notable scoundrel' test? Should we be keeping (like some other quackery) as a warning?  Or, given the inevitable positive spin which will be shoe-horned back into here (like the quotes in that deletion!), should we even try? Andy Dingley (talk) 18:30, 2 February 2020 (UTC)
 * It is likely not "quackery" because the products of this company are now Carried by retail giant Target and Retail giant Walmart. Also carried at drugstore giant CVS. Lightburst (talk) 19:55, 2 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Major retailers also carry homeopathy remedies and healing crystals, so being sold at Walmart doesn't really mean it's not quackery. Not that that has any bearing on whether the article should be deleted or not. SpicyMilkBoy (talk) 21:07, 2 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Apples and oranges SpicyMilkBoy. A health test must be accurate for a Drug Store giant to carry it... a healing crystal- not so much. Lightburst (talk) 21:09, 2 February 2020 (UTC)
 * So the arbiter now between genuine healthcare and a quack product is Walmart? (Who also sell little elastic wristbands to cure seasickness by pressure points.) Andy Dingley (talk) 21:34, 2 February 2020 (UTC)
 * A health test must be accurate for a Drug Store giant to carry it. You actually believe this is true?! Levivich 19:18, 3 February 2020 (UTC)


 * Delete - this incarnation of the article in question is markedly similar to the version that was previously deleted. A WP:BEFORE search for new sources (published between Jan 2019 and Jan 2020) turns some press releases and funding announcements, but nothing in-depth or truly independent from the subject. As far as my view is concerned, WP:NCORP is still not being met. SamHolt6 (talk) 18:50, 2 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep WP:NORUSH I see that the article was recently deleted and I have read the arguments. The company is new and poised to control the mail order health test kits. In 2019 they got an influx of cash. I would like to see the article developed. A relatively new deal on the television show Shark Tank is also notable. There is much RS which can improve the article. Notable company which is poised to be even more notable. Lightburst (talk) 18:56, 2 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Counter WP:CRYSTALBALL Wikipedia doesn't care what is "poised" to do anything, only what is already notable. If this company becomes notable in the future, it can have an article on it. Until then, delete. --Danielklein (talk) 23:53, 10 February 2020 (UTC)


 * delete sources read like press releases and routine coverage. Still does not meet WP:CORP "Good to know" is not an inclusion criterion. Wikipedia is not a consumer watchdog site. As Andy Dingley said. And "multiple doctors question" is nebulous, and does not do anything to show notoriety. There are plenty of non notable tests physicians feel doubtful about as a class, and this is just one non notable entity dealing with such tests. "Poised to grow", sounds like a marketing pitch. And Shark Tank is there to promote businesses--  Deep  fried  okra    18:59, 2 February 2020 (UTC)
 * As a matter of fact, i think WP:G4 applies. And a second AFD is certainly not being in a rush to delete. The thing has now been created twice. The previous deletion was 1 year ago-- plenty of time.--  Deep fried  okra    19:03, 2 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Consensus changes. That is why it is unfortunate that an editor had pinged the editors from a full year ago. We might have a new WP:LOCALCONSENSUS with a natural AfD process. I have not seen this done, where previous AfD !voters from 365 days ago are pinged to sink an AfD. Seems rigged doing it like this. The company has secured 50 million dollars in May of 2019 which is 5 months after the first AfD ended in delete. Take a new look. And WP:TROUT to the nominator for the pings. Lightburst (talk) 19:09, 2 February 2020 (UTC)
 * WP:G4 does not apply to this article. It is not substantially unchanged and there has been new information after the first AfD. Lightburst (talk) 21:12, 2 February 2020 (UTC)
 * They are all experienced users, and I believe their comments are coming after reviewing the new information about the company not because I have pinged them. Regarding WP:NORUSH, it's not a policy, and it does not apply here becasue the article was recreated in November 2019, under a different title to evade the protection at EverlyWell. GSS &#x202F;&#128172; 05:02, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I looked through your previous AfD nominations and it is not your practice to ever ping !voters from previous AfDs. I have no idea why you did it this time - esp since you pinged editors from a year ago. But it got this AfD off to head shaking start and sunk the AfD rather quickly. Lightburst (talk) 06:00, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Lightburst, GSS has pinged previous participants before . Nor is that unusual, I've been pinged several times by other editors making 2nd nominations, particularly for articles with complex histories like this one. Note also that GSS pinged every participant on the previous AfD who wasn't a sockpuppet. The fact that we all opined "delete" that time is immaterial, and I don't think it's fair to say we can't be trusted to judge this new version dispassionately. Besides, the first two delete !votes here are from editors who had not participated in the first AfD. Voceditenore (talk) 17:33, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
 * We can go round and round. In that AfD that you highlight they pinged participants from an AfD which ended in no consensus exactly two months prior. This was pinging editors from an AfD which ended a full calendar year ago. And you can see I participate in hundreds of AfDs. In my experience this is not done. It is not normal, it is not recommended, it is unusual. I would point out that, the nominator does not normally do this because I looked. It is not best practice. Lightburst (talk) 17:50, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
 * We shall have to agree to disagree, but one could argue that you listing this AfD at the Article Rescue Squadron – Rescue list with the comment that this AfD "feels rigged" by the nominator seems a lot more like canvassing than those pings do. Just saying. Voceditenore (talk) 18:30, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
 * The ARS notified to improve an article. But the members probably peeked in to see this is a lost cause and a time waste. You can look through the records and archives on ARS to educate yourself about the mission rather than casting aspersions. By the way you are not the first, and won't be the last. Lightburst (talk) 18:40, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I am thoroughly familiar with ARS. I even got six of these in my 13 years on Wikipedia (for what it's worth). Listing an article for rescue is one thing. Commenting there that its AfD is rigged another. It's entirely inappropriate. Voceditenore (talk) 19:15, 3 February 2020 (UTC)


 * Delete due to lack of independent coverage; sources are primarily press releases, routine funding announcements and promo pieces/interviews practically written by the company itself. Fails NCORP and may be suitable for G4. –dlthewave ☎ 19:41, 2 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep WP might be the only balanced source for consumers to find out the dangers of this company. The article can be cleaned up and the fringe unsourced parts removed. I am willing to make a start on the page. Also WP:NOTPAPER, more criticism will come up over time if the company is not doing peer reviewed studies.--Akrasia25 (talk) 19:55, 2 February 2020 (UTC)
 * If the article is kept than a cleanup may be required, but AfD is not cleanup. For our purposes here we cannot assume that the topic will accrue more coverage in the future (WP:CRYSTAL), as we are only considering on and off-wiki coverage that exists at present. SamHolt6 (talk) 20:53, 2 February 2020 (UTC)


 * KEEP Does it matter if the Forbes article, despite being published by a contributor, got "Editors' Pick"? I see the CNN article  isn't done by the news staff just people getting a cut of the profits from those who buy what they talk about.  How many of the news search results are paid commercials and press releases, and how many are legitimate coverage?  A lot of search results to sort through. TechCrunch seems like a reliable source.  So does this So I say that's enough independent coverage in reliable sources to pass the general notability guidelines.   D r e a m Focus  19:58, 2 February 2020 (UTC)
 * https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-07-23/at-home-health-tests-get-the-direct-to-consumer-treatment https://www.usmagazine.com/shop-with-us/news/this-everlywell-metabolism-test-can-help-inform-your-weight-loss/ meet WP:GNG  D r e a m Focus  21:04, 2 February 2020 (UTC)
 * From US Magazine: Get the Metabolism Test (originally $89) on sale for just $71 from Everlywell for a limited time with code: RESULTS20 at checkout! That's an advertisement, not reliable independent coverage. SpicyMilkBoy (talk) 21:11, 2 February 2020 (UTC)


 * Delete. Coverage consists of funding announcements (which are trivial coverage per WP:NCORP), press releases and unreliable sources such as Forbes contributor pieces and Gazette Review, which "publishes articles written by users & freelancers" and states "a variety of companies provide products or services to GazetteReview.com for free in the hopes that their companies will be mentioned in reviews", i.e., it's a spammy blog. Regarding the arguments that this should be kept to inform people that the tests are unreliable, that is emphatically not what Wikipedia is for; refer to the official disclaimer that Wikipedia does not provide medical advice. There are many scams and stupid ideas in the world, we only write about the ones that are notable. SpicyMilkBoy (talk) 20:46, 2 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment - This was easy last time, both at Articles for deletion/EverlyWell and at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:EverlyWell. It is difficult, because the question is now whether it has become notable for fringe science being peddled as medicine.  The insertion of the Criticisms section may be a clever way to sneak its real notability in.  The company isn't notable yet for being a successful home quack test product manufacturer, but the controversy does appear to be notable.  I disagree with User:Lightburst, because being poised to become anything is just up and coming too soon.  If the company is notable, the article should be negative.  It is difficult because it isn't obvious whether a negative article is warranted.  Robert McClenon (talk) 21:19, 2 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Still Delete. According to the lead, the test kits are not FDA-approved and the company appeared on an episode of Shark Tank. That doesn't spell WP:ORGCRIT to me, just another attempt at WP:SEO.  Mini  apolis  21:31, 2 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete and salt. Still lacking in coverage depth from solid sources, despite obvious SEO and marketing efforts. OhNo itsJamie  Talk 05:40, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete and salt. Wow, that US magazine source is terrible but the other sources aren't much better. We should never reward spammers and scammers and deceptive paid editors. Cullen</b><sup style="color:#707">328  Let's discuss it  05:48, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete per the discussion between Andy Dingley and Lightburst, and giving the oxygene of publicity to this slightly dubious enterprise. -Roxy, the PROD. . wooF 09:51, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment - Like Robert McClenon, I found deletion easy last time, this time not so clear-cut. I suspect the original "Criticism" section on this new version had as its goals SEO optimization and acceptance here on the basis that the article is "balanced" and showing increased coverage of the company. But really, those refs are basically about the validity of using the IgG test for detecting allergies—not about the company itself. Alternatively, this new version of the article may be a good faith attempt to "warn the public", but that's not the purpose of Wikipedia in the absence of notability. As far as I'm concerned there are only two articles that are from mainstream, independent sources that genuinely focus on the company itself: this one from Bloomberg Businessweek and this one from NPR. The remainder are either press release-based or puff-pieces (I include the Forbes and TechCrunch ones in the latter). This one from Business Insider is about data protection and primarily about 23andMe and Ancestry.com with only a name-check in one sentence for EverlyWell. The company's main claims to fame are appearing on Shark Tank and a bunch of people complaining/warning about one of the tests they market. Not very impressive. Are the Bloomberg and NPR articles on the company sufficient? I'm not sure. I'll probably stay on the fence for now. Voceditenore (talk) 10:46, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete - The topic has received in-depth coverage since last deletion but the page in its current state is WP:TNT-worthy. It is still a victim of WP:REFBOMBING and would need a complete rewrite in my opinion to meet proper tone. On a complete separate note, I would suggest salting the page so that it needs a review through AfC and approval by admin for recreation. It does appear to at least have a COI in its creation (and possibly UPE) and is wasting everyone's time dealing with it. --CNMall41 (talk) 17:02, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment on this article's history (for those who haven't checked the logs) Justlettersandnumbers (an admin) restored the deleted versions so that a comparison could be made. However, the article under consideration now was created in November 2019 by Literalkoala with this edit . It is substantially different from earlier versions.
 * The first time it was created was in December 2018 by (now blocked for UPE and socking). It was draftified and deleted in January 2019 per Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:EverlyWell. The second version was created in January 2019 by  (now blocked for UPE and socking) and deleted in January 2019 per Articles for deletion/EverlyWell. Voceditenore (talk) 18:17, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately editors see paid editing and socking and some reflexively !vote delete. How about we debate the merits of this company having an article. Paid editing and socking does not invalidate the company's notability. The article was already tagged for paid editing. Lightburst (talk) 18:40, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
 * That was not the point of my comment. The point is that the current version is substantially different from the UPE ones and should be judged on its merits, not on the fate or creators of its previous incarnations. There is no evidence that this version is connected in any way to those versions, but the current state of the history does not make that clear. Voceditenore (talk) 19:23, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I agree its fate needs decided on its own merit. After that however, what do we do? If it is deleted, I believe it should be salted. Being substantially different doesn't clear it from UPE accusations. It could just mean it was written by a different paid editor and not someone from the company. Not making a direct accusation, just pointing out that we cannot say one way or another it is (or isn't) UPE. --CNMall41 (talk) 21:48, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

Gogolwold (talk) 12:50, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete and salt because it's been recreated multiple times by UPEs. – Leviv<span style="display:inline-block;position:relative;transform:rotate(45deg);bottom:-.57em;">ich 01:13, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep I find it ridiculous that editors are accusing of being a paid editor. Have you even looked at their edit history? Hay House, Graham Reed (psychologist), Susan Clancy, Culemborg fireworks disaster, Breast milk and more. And salt? Really? Everywell is one of those companies that keeps coming up in various social media posts and people want to understand what it is. Erasing (and salting) will only send them to the companies website. Wikipedia is a encyclopedia where people go to get informed information. I think this page deserves to stay and inform.Sgerbic (talk) 18:59, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep I edited this a while back and was pleased to see the well deserved criticism of the company it had. I just reviewed it again and the article certainly does NOT reflect anyone creating it on behalf of the company, if that was ever the case in the first place. In it's current state, I'm sure EverlyWell would love it to be deleted. Why are we playing into their hands by discussing COI as a reason to delete it? If it is to be deleted, it should be ONLY on the basis on notability. Also, the banner on the article ("This article may have been created or edited in return for undisclosed payments..." ) must seem perplexing to any reader. I can see the unanswered question: "Who would pay someone to write THIS about their company?" RobP (talk) 20:14, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
 * KeepClearly enough WP:RS coverage to pass GNG. whether the article needs a rerwite is not an AfD discussion.
 * Bloomberg - https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-07-23/at-home-health-tests-get-the-direct-to-consumer-treatment
 * Fortune - https://fortune.com/2019/10/22/wework-theranos-female-startup-ceo/
 * WAll Street Journal - https://www.wsj.com/articles/venture-investors-bet-50-million-on-test-kit-startup-everlywell-11555414200
 * Cosmopolitan - https://www.cosmopolitan.com/sex-love/a27533540/at-home-sti-std-test-kits/
 * Delete Lacks in-depth coverage and whats there reads like a press releases. - FitIndia  Talk Commons 15:34, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
 * "...whats there reads like a press releases" Seriously? This makes me think people voting here are not actually reading the article at all. Fully half of the lead is criticism: "The company's test kits are not approved by the FDA. Multiple medical doctors question the necessity and usefulness of these tests. IgG tests are not accurate enough to be regularly used by allergists or medical doctors in diagnosing allergies and sensitivities. The presence of IgG antibodies does not confirm an allergy but rather that the body has encountered that substance at some point in the recent past." This reflects the article main body text. What company would write a press release anything like THIS?? RobP (talk) 17:22, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
 * well there’s canvassing in the nomination, so you can’t expect much better unfortunately. It’s a pile on. Gogolwold (talk) 17:38, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
 * canvassing in the nomination.. are you serious? <span style="font-family:monospace;font-weight:bold;font-size:16px;color:hsl(205, 98%, 55%);">GSS &#x202F;&#128172; 17:42, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
 * what else would you call pinging everyone who voted delete last time? Gogolwold (talk) 17:47, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
 * There was only one user to !vote keep in the previous AfD and FYI that user was blocked for undisclosed paid editing. This is common practice not very unusual and as pointed out above the first two delete !votes here are from editors who had not participated in the first AfD. <span style="font-family:monospace;font-weight:bold;font-size:16px;color:hsl(205, 98%, 55%);">GSS &#x202F;&#128172; 17:57, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I have not yet seen an explanation as to why some of the DELETE voters are claiming the article reads like a press release (or should be evaluated as a COI/UPE issue), when this is unarguably not the case -- as I pointed out just above. RobP (talk) 19:20, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't recall saying that it "reads like a press release." I also didn't say it needs evaluated for COI. I left several comments which stated it appears to have a COI based on its creation but that it was NOT a direct accusation (and the creator now appears blocked for such). My comments were basically what to do IF it is deleted, nothing else. I also stated it needs evaluated on its own merit outside of any COI so not sure why I got pinged. On another note, I am not sure anyone has addressed my comment about the need for WP:REFBOMBING. --CNMall41 (talk) 07:47, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
 * How frustrating! Before voting can you please READ the article and do a little research. The creator of this NEW version is obviously NOT a paid editor and the page as currently written is NOT something that a company would want to have paid for. This is a BRAND NEW VERSION - quit talking about the older versions. OMG I can't even. Sgerbic (talk) 23:55, 5 February 2020 (UTC)


 * Comment What the heck is this if not RS from Harriet Hall https://sciencebasedmedicine.org/everlywell-at-home-lab-tests-that-dont-make-sense
 * Let me repeat your comment for you, OMG! How frustrating! Before voting can you please take some time and READ the policies? Rp2006 you forget to ping in your comment above. <span style="font-family:monospace;font-weight:bold;font-size:16px;color:hsl(205, 98%, 55%);">GSS &#x202F;&#128172; 03:05, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment Don't know why I was pinged, but I will say that sourcing is still insufficient to meet the notability requirement. EverlyWell being happy/unhappy with the content is not relevant. And we are not a soapbox from which to denounce anyone or anything for any perceived wrongdoing. As the article deals with living people, we are tacking toward shoal waters if we argue to keep as a public benefit to warn against the big bad ogre..As with a recent BLP I've been dealing with, our job as encyclopedists is to build an encyclopedia. Not to fix the world's wrongs. Or to announce them.--  Deep fried  okra    03:34, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I should also say that the sources listed above by Gogolwold are simply not sufficient to meet WP:CORP.--  Deep  fried  okra    03:55, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Rubbish. The WSJ, Fortune and Bloomberg articles all pass WP:ORGCRITGogolwold (talk) 09:04, 6 February 2020 (UTC)


 * Comment I have not said the article reads like a press release. Some of the sources do.--  Deep fried  okra    03:37, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Sorry then... It seemed like you and others were saying this WP article looked like a press release. ("Lacks in-depth coverage and whats there reads like a press release") Others made that mistake as well, so I'm not sure it was all my fault for misconstruing comments of that variety here. OK then... so the issue is some of the citations used in this article read like a press release? Yes, I just looked again. A minority of the articles used as citations seem to be uncritical. But unless you and like minded folks here are stating otherwise, they seem to be independent of the subject. So what's the beef? If the media covers something positively it is not allowed? I don't see this stance as being a WP rule. In any case, those are the minority here, and used to established what the company's details and claims were/are. But they are countered by the much larger number of citations critical of it. And that is reflected in the tone of the entire article, including the lead. So, what is the problem then? Also, would not deleting some of the pro- material (if it is thought to be too much) be better than deleting the entire article? RobP (talk) 16:40, 6 February 2020 (UTC)


 * Comment Re salting so an admin must approve. That is not how we do things. The RfC reviewers need not be admins. And you do't need an admin to review an article to see if it would meet requirements. It would be best though if it were left to an RfC reviewer to decide on main spacing further iterations.--  Deep  fried  okra    03:42, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep, there are enough sources to pass WP:RS however, it needs to trimmed for neutrality. Patrickbetzig (talk) 08:16, 10 February 2020 (UTC) — Patrickbetzig (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Relist. Feels like delete but more time may help sort out. Hyperbolick (talk) 20:53, 10 February 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.