Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Healthcare.com, Inc


 * 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. Stifle (talk) 11:28, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Healthcare.com, Inc

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )
 * Co-nominating:
 * Co-nominating:

Non-notable website. Alexa ranking above 11,000 in the US and above 45,000 worldwide. No significant independent coverage found. WikiDan61 ChatMe!ReadMe!! 17:32, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep Notability can be readily proven with Google news archives. Check here '' ▒ Wirεłεşş ▒ Fidεłitұ ▒ Ćłâşş ▒ Θnε ▒  ―Œ  ♣Łεâvε Ξ мεşşâgε♣  18:04, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment None of those sources came up when I performed my Google search. Clearly I need to learn to use Google better!!  WikiDan61 ChatMe!ReadMe!! 18:15, 4 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep Not much at the moment, but looks to be notable and source-able from the gnews search. I'd recommend a withdrawal.  Jujutacular  T · C 19:33, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete On closer inspection, the gnews hits do indeed look to be mostly PR type stuff. Does not constitute significant coverage - does not pass WP:ORG.  Jujutacular  T · C 01:13, 6 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete. Under WP:ORG, an organization is notable if it receives "significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources..."  What I see online in news searches is a fair amount of self promotion and advertising (including press releases where the company quotes itself), but not much independent coverage where others are quoting or referring to the organization.  Wikipeterproject (talk) 21:25, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete per above. Alan  -  talk  21:48, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete - clearly spam in intent; no credible assertion of notability. -- Orange Mike  &#x007C;   Talk  22:19, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment Denver Business Journal, The Denver Post Knight Ridder/Tribune Business News, Washington Post, CNET news, another CNET news , Atlanta Journal , The Inquisitr , Medical marketing and Media , Atlanta Business Wire , Rocky Mountain News, TransworldNews , Georgia Court of Appeals case (see #17 case) . And all this in a five minute search on Google News using the same link I provided above. Strong Keep and strong improve. '' ▒ Wirεłεşş ▒ Fidεłitұ ▒ Ćłâşş ▒ Θnε ▒ ―Œ  ♣Łεâvε Ξ мεşşâgε♣  06:36, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
 * comment That link to the Denver Business Journal led me to an article about a different company, including the following "Marietta, Ga.-based Healthcare.com, another software company" which was the only mention of this company in the entire article. Googlehits like that don't constitute substantial coverage. -- Orange Mike  &#x007C;   Talk  15:16, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment Some of the articles listed above are paid content in online newspapers (i.e. advertising), one is a stock quote and another is a reprint of a press release by the company. None of these prove notability in accordance with WP:ORG.  It's important to do some analysis and argue a position here.  Simply finding web hits of a name proves absolutely nothing either way.  Wikipeterproject (talk) 17:25, 5 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Speedy delete. Unambiguous advertising, no content, and no context.  The entire text of the article: Healthcare.com, Inc serves millions of searches every month to internet users looking for health insurance products, healthcare providers and information. There is no better version in history. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:43, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment Orangemike, probably you've got it wrong. You might wish to revisit the link of Denver Business Journal. It has eight mentions of healthcare.com. And generally, when companies merge/get acquired/taken over/de-merge, their head offices change. The company, healthcare.com, per se, has remained the same.
 * Wikipeterproject, I appreciate your viewpoint. But maybe your analysis is incorrect to a large extent. Paid content doesn't at all mean advertising. [Google lost a case with newspapers and magazines two months ago (led by the Murdoch brigade) where they cannot show the direct links to all newspaper sites - but only to newspapers that allow - and ergo, google can show only paid content.]. And as our RS policy accepts very clearly, it's not necessary whether the RS is accessible through paid channels or unpaid channels, but as long as the RS is there, the article is notable.
 * Smerdis of Tion, I understand that a one line article may well result in a speedy delete you're mentioning. But if we improve the article, or there's a chance of notability - which is present here - we cannot CSD it. Would love your inputs within the article too. I'll try to improve it. Regards '' ▒ Wirεłεşş ▒ Fidεłitұ ▒ Ćłâşş ▒ Θnε ▒ ―Œ  ♣Łεâvε Ξ мεşşâgε♣  05:40, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Speedy Redirect please. I just checked and found this site already existing on our project -- Healthcare.com. Clearly, we've been investing our time on the wrong article. Request a speedy redirect to the mentioned page. Thanks '' ▒ Wirεłεşş ▒ Fidεłitұ ▒ Ćłâşş ▒ Θnε ▒ ―Œ  ♣Łεâvε Ξ мεşşâgε♣  05:47, 7 February 2010 (UTC)


 * That article was created on the same day by a spam only account with the same first paragraph. Yes, one of the articles should be redirected, but we should debate here whether to keep/delete both.


 * Oh, and you've voted twice. Which is it? MER-C 08:26, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry for that confusion. I've changed my 'vote' to a 'redirect' And I don't believe you can discuss both articles out here 'unless' you tag the other article for AfD. I'm not going to tag that article as I do believe it's a notable site. However, do feel free to tag the other article. Thanks '' ▒ Wirεłεşş ▒ Fidεłitұ ▒ Ćłâşş ▒ Θnε ▒ ―Œ  ♣Łεâvε Ξ мεşşâgε♣  14:06, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
 * And as someone has tagged the other article too for AfD, it's logical to continue discussions out here. I have already shown multiple non-trivial reliable sources which have a significant mention of Healthcare.com. This is the requirement of WP:ORG and I believe that both articles should be allowed to continue. The main article surely needs to be improved. But irrespective of that, it qualifies under WP:ORG. '' ▒ Wirεłεşş ▒ Fidεłitұ ▒ Ćłâşş ▒ Θnε ▒  ―Œ  ♣Łεâvε Ξ мεşşâgε♣  14:33, 7 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete, also Healthcare.com. Clear attempt by said company to abuse Wikipedia for self-promotion. MER-C 08:33, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep Healthcare.com. The other, Healthcare.com, Inc, can be redirected or deleted. As shown by User: Wifione and links within the article, the company is a notable. The article does need some wikifying and de-promoting, but the company is clearly a notable company and deserving of an article. -- Pink Bull  20:25, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete - Clear self-promotion Makrandjoshi (talk) 16:24, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Delet - I can't even see that the article has much to do with the title. Deb (talk) 12:55, 9 February 2010 (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.