Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/HealthTap


 * 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 no consensus - no prejudice against filing another AfD. Basically, the points made between everyone cancel each other out. I don't think there's going to be an agreement on this one. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  11:46, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

HealthTap

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Minimal, announcement-oriented coverage in reliable sources. The NYT coverage is actually VentureBeat. Nearly everything cited is a routine business announcement or not a reliable source, and the article only documents the company's existence. Fails to meet WP:NCORP. FalconK (talk) 05:44, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. FalconK (talk) 05:44, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. FalconK (talk) 05:44, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. FalconK (talk) 05:44, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Northern Escapee (talk) 06:27, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 11:36, 3 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Note to closer for soft deletion: This nomination has had limited participation and falls within the standards set for lack of quorum. There are no previous AfD discussions, undeletions, or current redirects and no previous PRODs have been located. This nomination may be eligible for soft deletion at the end of its 7-day listing. --Cewbot (talk) 00:02, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Related discussions:

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 Talk Work 18:38, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.  The article includes criticism of the company: "HealthTap requires only that its physicians be licensed in the United States and in good standing — that is, not accused of malfeasance. Lamentably, it does not use board certification to establish a floor for qualifications required for physicians to participate. ... Another worrisome aspect is the breeziness of HealthTap’s answers, which are limited to 400 characters, a length hardly well-suited for providing nuanced answers to some medical questions. ... Dr. Peter W. Carmel, president of the American Medical Association, says he is concerned about the use of online medical information, which should “complement, not replace, the communication between a patient and their physician,” he wrote in an e-mail."  <li> The article includes critical analysis about HealthTap: "I’m dubious that loads of consumers will be willing to pay that much, especially on top of existing insurance premiums, given the limitations of mobile medicine. Doctors can only prescribe certain drugs remotely, while blood tests and other diagnostics still require in-person visits. Telemedicine makes perfect sense in and of itself, especially for relatively healthy people who only need to check in with their doctors occasionally and don’t want the hassle of physically getting to a clinic. But HealthTap’s rivals in the space are generally charging less, at least for the basic level of these services." </li> <li></li> <li> The book notes: "HealthTap is building a patient-focused health information service, starting with a mobile application that anyone can run on most any device. For a patient, the experience is simple: Tap a button, ask a question, get an answer. Behind the scenes, HealthTap is processing vast datasets, using machine-learning, natural language processing, and voice recognition, to find answers to the questions that are asked. It's almost like having a doctor in your pocket, anytime you need her. There are currently over 55,000 doctors using the application and providing answers. Like any network, as the users (patients and doctors) increase, the value of the network increases, often exponentially." </li> <li> The article notes, "HealthTap is best known for its question and answer website, where consumers can submit questions limited to 150 characters, answered by a pool of 60,000 doctors from across the U.S. That service has 10 million active users and is free with no ads. Prime is how HealthTap could start making money." </li> <li></li> <li></li> <li></li> <li></li> <li></li> <li></li> <li></li> <li></li> <li></li> <li></li> <li></li> </ol>There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow HealthTap to pass Notability, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". Cunard (talk) 10:40, 6 February 2021 (UTC) </li></ul>
 * Delete I note that Cunard is using the GNG as the applicable guidelines to decide on notability and not WP:NCORP which is for organizations/companies. Also, as per the clear consensus at this recent RfC from Jan 2021 (which is to decide wording to describe *current* practice), it acknowledges the strict significant coverage requirements spelled out in the SNG for organisations and companies. In summary, references that rely on "echo chamber" information/opinions/etc (i.e. articles that rely entirely on information provided in announcements, quotations, interviews, partners, financial data, etc) fail the criteria for establishing notability.
 * There are two primary sections within NCORP that are applicable. WP:CORPDEPTH requires Deep or significant coverage provides an overview, description, commentary, survey, study, discussion, analysis, or evaluation of the product, company, or organization and WP:ORGIND requires "Independent content" which is described as original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject.
 * Assuming that Cunard put his best references at the start, I'll focus on the first five. In summary, *all* of the above references fail the criteria for establishing notability.
 * 1. NYT has no Independent Content. The quotation about physicians being licensed and in good standing is directly attributable to the company. The quotation from the president of the American Medical Association makes no mention of this company and there's no indication that his comment is directed at this company and not the industry in general.
 * 2. Vox reference is based on a company announcements and preview of an update to their product version including pricing. While there is an opinion provided by the journalist, the reference does not provide any in-depth information on the company and fails WP:CORPDEPTH
 * 3 Wired reference is based entirely on an interview with Ron Gutman ,a founder of the company, and information/statistics provided by the company. It is an echo-chamber article and fails WP:ORGIND.
 * 4 Book reference provides a very short overview of Healthtap but it is neither in-depth nor significant. It also fails to provide any Independent content as it is merely reciting facts and data about the company which were provided by the company (e.g. the statements about using machine-learning, NLP and voice recognition, the number of doctors on the platform, etc).
 * 5. The Forbes reference is from the "sites" section but was written by a staff member. That section of the website is widely acknowledged as not having editorial oversight and fails WP:RS. The reference itself relies entirely on a "demo" provided by the company founder, fails WP:ORGIND.
 * References fail WP:NCORP (the applicable guideline for companies/organizations), topic fails the criteria for establishing notability. <b style="font-family: Courier; color: darkgreen;"> HighKing</b>++ 12:13, 8 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Comment: HealthTap passes both Notability and Notability (organizations and companies). The sources I provided meet Notability (organizations and companies), which says: "Deep or significant coverage provides an overview, description, commentary, survey, study, discussion, analysis, or evaluation of the product, company, or organization. Such coverage provides an organization with a level of attention that extends well beyond brief mentions and routine announcements, and makes it possible to write more than a very brief, incomplete stub about the organization." The New York Times article has substantial analysis about the company. It writes (my bolding), "HealthTap requires only that its physicians be licensed in the United States and in good standing — that is, not accused of malfeasance. Lamentably, it does not use board certification to establish a floor for qualifications required for physicians to participate". This is direct criticism from the journalist about HealthTap's deficiencies. Another quote from the article is (my bolding) "Another worrisome aspect is the breeziness of HealthTap’s answers, which are limited to 400 characters, a length hardly well-suited for providing nuanced answers to some medical questions." This is further criticism and analysis of the company from The New York Times. It is incorrect to say "NYT has no Independent Content." The Vox article provides substantial criticism of the company: "I’m dubious that loads of consumers will be willing to pay that much" and "But HealthTap’s rivals in the space are generally charging less, at least for the basic level of these services." The Wired article provides substantial analysis. It notes (my bolding), "Then there's the price. At $99 a month, the service is cheaper than the average monthly cost of insurance under the Affordable Care Act, and yet, it's still a substantial amount to pay on top of insurance." It also notes (my bolding), "For many patients, empathy, bedside manner, and understanding are some of the most important traits for any physician. ... Building that unprecedented level of comfort is a challenge HealthTap, and indeed, the rest of the telehealth industry, will have to overcome."  The book provides roughly 200 words of coverage about the company under a heading titled "HealthTap". It provides an overview of the company's work so meets the "deep or significant coverage" requirement of the guideline.  Regarding "The Forbes reference is from the "sites" section but was written by a staff member. That section of the website is widely acknowledged as not having editorial oversight and fails WP:RS." – every article under https://www.forbes.com/ is under the "sites" section, regardless of whether it's written by a staff member or a contributor. To say that the "sites" section "is widely acknowledged as not having editorial oversight and fails WP:RS" for both staff members and contributors is incorrect. Only the contributor articles lack editorial oversight. All staff articles do have editorial oversight. The article provides an overview of a HealthTap offering. It includes independent research such as noting that there are "cheaper" services like HealthTap: "While there are other, sometimes cheaper, “telemedicine” services out there like LifeHealth Online and American Well, Gutman says he’s trying to build a marketplace for doctors that's a little Amazon."  Cunard (talk) 11:19, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Response Cunard, the references must pass *all* of the criteria in NCORP, you can't just pluck s couple and then say the sources pass. You haven't addresses the fact that once the articles are held up against ORGIND, you're left with one or two comments here and there - and those comments don't amount to in-depth coverage.
 * For example, you've picked two sentences from the New York Times article where the journalist voices an opinion. But that's it, there's nothing else remaining in the article once you discard those parts that are attributable to the company. The sentence starting with Lamentably is followed by The company says... so the fact about the licensing of physicians is attributable to the company and the *only* independent content is the journalist repeating this fact and preceding the sentence with "Lamentably". The comment on "Another worrisome aspect" isn't even about the company but about their app. Having one or two bare "opinions" with no in-depth commentary or discussion on those opinions does not pass CORPDEPTH.
 * The same criticism can be leveled at the Vox article - the article is based entirely on a company announcement and we get one single sentence where the journalist expresses one single opinion on his doubt that consumers will be willing to pay. There's nothing else. That is not enough to pass CORPDEPTH.
 * The same criticism applies to the Wired article. It is en interview, all the information about the company originates from company sources and the $99 per month opinion formed part of the interview itself and the executive responded. Taking a single comment out of context, as you've done, is a misleading practice.
 * You claim that all of those sources meet the criteria for Deep or significant coverage provides an overview, description, commentary, survey, study, discussion, analysis, or evaluation of the product, company, or organization but when you remove the information provided by the company from the articles, there is barely anything remaining other than the odd sentence here or there that you've highlighted. The purpose of CORPDEPTH is that the *journalist* has to provide the information, not simply write down exactly the information the company provided and then make a comment here or there. <b style="font-family: Courier; color: darkgreen;"> HighKing</b>++ 14:24, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
 * That some of the articles include quotations from people affiliated with the company does not make the entire articles non-independent. The sources have independent research, reporting, and analysis about the company as I pointed out in the quotations. Cunard (talk) 00:55, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I agree and that's why you need to go through each article and discard everything that isn't clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated with the company (as per ORGIND). The trouble with the articles you've pointed to is that once you do that, there's nothing left. Certainly nothing that meets in-depth coverage. The odd quote here and there is all you (and I) have managed to isolate. There's no point in trying to then argue that 1, 2 or even 3 sentences meets WP:CORPDEPTH. <b style="font-family: Courier; color: darkgreen;"> HighKing</b>++ 20:10, 21 February 2021 (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: One last go-round for more discussion now that sources are being asserted
 * Delete. References are the classic bad sources per NCORP (WP:ORGIND "dependent coverage"). Forbes non-staff, VentureBeat etc. There is no "New York Times article". This discussion is being tactically flooded. — Alalch Emis (talk) 12:00, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 04:18, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete for opinionated and content feed sources. The NY Times citation is credited to "VentureBeat" - a promotional content provider. The Forbes citation has the byline of "Forbes Contributor" and not a staff writer.  Per WP:RSPSRC Forbes contributors are generally unreliable as they have minimal editorial oversight and are not reliable unless "..written by a subject-matter expert."  The service lacks broad geographical coverage. The New Zealand press citation focuses on the app's failure and how it cost their government millions.  And finally there is serious WP:COI where several editors limited their contributions almost exclusively within the HealthTap article: , , (!), , , and .  I cannot know if they are socks but it is an editing pattern for a WP:SPA, and possibly WP:COI through paid editing. Blue Riband► 05:37, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
 * The New York Times article cited in the Wikipedia article is a VentureBeat article: https://www.nytimes.com/external/venturebeat/2011/09/26/26venturebeat-healthtaps-social-network-of-5000-doctors-is-6641.html. The New York Times article I cited in this discussion is written by a New York Times writer: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/05/business/on-healthtap-advice-for-you-and-points-for-doctors.html. The Forbes article cited in the Wikipedia article is by a Forbes contributor: https://www.forbes.com/sites/tomiogeron/2011/12/06/healthtap-qa-site-connects-doctors-and-patients/. The Forbes article I cited in this discussion is written by a Forbes staff member: https://www.forbes.com/sites/parmyolson/2014/07/30/healthtap-offers-uber-like-service-for-seeing-a-doctor/. This comment and Alalch Emis's comment do not address the significant coverage in reliable sources I provided. The New Zealand Herald article does "focu[s] on the app's failure and how it cost their government millions". This is a source I overlooked in my list of sources above. This source strongly contributes to notability in being an independent source that has very negative material about HealthTap such as: "• A particular driver of HealthTap's poor reputation was its design for the US health-care market, which meant it had attributes that were strongly at odds with Waikato Hospital's clinical culture;" That this very negative source is cited in the article is a very strong indication that non-paid editors have contributed to the article. Cunard (talk) 05:45, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

<ul><li>Comment: I missed the The New Zealand Herald article about HealthTap in my search for sources. After Blue Riband pointed out the source, I conducted a new search for sources about HealthTap. I have found some additional very negative coverage about the inquiry into HealthTap in New Zealand. I have also found a book from a Taiwanese publisher that profiles HealthTap on three full pages. There is sufficient coverage in (1) the Taiwan-published book and (2) the Ernst & Young report and the Controller and Auditor-General of New Zealand report into HealthTap to meet the significant coverage requirement of Notability (organizations and companies), the independence requirement of Notability (organizations and companies), and the geographical coverage requirement of Notability (organizations and companies). The Chinese book source: <ol> <li> The book covers HealthTap on three full pages (pages 114–116). It does not include quotes from people affiliated with the company </li></ol> Coverage about the inquiry into HealthTap in New Zealand: <ol> <li> From the Ernst & Young report: <ol><li>"Where the service offered through the HealthTap platform met a particular clinical need, it performed well."</li><li>HealthTap's operating model did not fit well with the New Zealand healthcare context, and the application had usability issues in the Waikato DHB operating environment. This meant that: (1) the "off-the-shelf" HealthTap platform was very United States-focused when it went live in the Waikato, which alienated local clinicians and consumers seeking to use it; and (2) considerable unanticipated time and expense was put into tailoring the platform to Waikato's outpatient model and IT requirements, and tailoring the content and functions for New Zealand users."</li><li>"The implementation of the HealthTap platform lacked a clear direction, transparency, or open communication, which was a significant barrier for organisational and sector support of it"</li></ol></li> <li> The "Part 2" of the report discusses has sections titled "What is HealthTap Inc?" and "How does the HealthTap platform work?" It is part of an extensive 66-page report about HealthTap. </li> <li>Articles about HealthTap's use in New Zealand, the inquiry, and the report:<ol> <li> Here are quotes from the article: <ol><li>"A five-month-long EY [Ernst Young] review of SmartHealth and HealthTap, the American company that powered the service through smart technology, discovered a series of bungles that led to a $9m budget blowout."</li><li>"A particular driver of HealthTap's poor reputation was its design for the US health-care market, which meant it had attributes that were strongly at odds with Waikato Hospital's clinical culture"</li><li>"The HealthTap contract price was a fixed annual licensing fee that did not reflect staged uptake of SmartHealth and meant the DHB paid the highest price from the outset."</li><li>Implementation of HealthTap lacked clear direction, transparency and open communication. "Other health organisations both in Waikato and the wider Midland region were surprised by Waikato's introduction of HealthTap, and organisational relationships suffered as a result.</li></ol></li> <li> The article notes, "The finding is one of many in a damning report released Thursday into Waikato DHB's dealings with US start-up company HealthTap, and its SmartHealth product." </li> <li></li> <li></li> <li></li> <li></li> </ol> </ol>Cunard (talk) 08:00, 22 February 2021 (UTC)</li></ul>


 * 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.