Deletion of Doxy.me

Comment: I understand where the editor above is coming from and I appreciate the thoroughness. It sounds like we've interpreted  differently, so I've reviewed again and my interpretation still leads me to believe these sources pass.  appears to mainly weed out anything that's essentially just a rewrite of material published by a primary source (churnalism). I dove into  as well in case I was missing something, and I'm not seeing any examples there that support the claim above. I'm not saying that interpretation is incorrect, but I haven't been able to verify this myself within the guidelines
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:ORGIND||WP:ORGIND||WP:NIS)

Comment: According to , "A company, corporation, organization, group, product, or service is notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject." Based on that, this startup meets the primary criteria listed at  with at least the following sources: https://www.businessinsider.com/bootstrapped-telehealth-startup-doxyme-go-to-for-doctors-investors-2020-6 1, https://www.deseret.com/utah/2020/8/22/21348724/pandemic-coronavirus-high-tech-covid-19-business-growth-telehealth-e-commerce-overstock-com-doxy-me 2, https://www.healthcareitnews.com/news/doxyme-simplicity-key-security 3, and https://www.techradar.com/best/best-telemedicine-software 4. These all meet: 1) , 2) multiple, 3) , 4) , and 5) . I was also able to find the following sources which appear to satisfy the criteria above but have not been included in the article: https://news.bloomberglaw.com/ip-law/doxy-me-sues-doximity-to-clear-telemedicine-trademark-use 4 and https://www.techradar.com/reviews/doxyme 5 (this is a review but it's from a reliable source so I believe it still meets ). On top of that, there are almost 2000 results when searching for articles covering the organization. The sourcing is there to meet , it may just need some help from other editors to better convey notability in how it's written. Keep and tag as a stub
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:NCORP||WP:SIGCOV||WP:INDEPENDENT||WP:RS||WP:SECONDARY)

Comment: Wikipedia is not a platform for promotion, nor a Yellow Pages. I've provided an analysis of some sources above. The criteria for establishing notability for companies/organizations as per  is for multiple sources (at least two) of |significant coverage with |in-depth information *on the company* and (this bit is important!) containing |"Independent Content". "Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include ''original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject''. None of the references in the article meet the criteria and having searched I am unable to locate any references that meet the criteria. Topic fails GNG/
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:SIGCOV||WP:CORPDEPTH||WP:ORGIND||WP:NCORP)