Deletion of Luma Health (2nd nomination)

Comment: I recommended this for deletion last year which resulted in no consensus. I still do not think it meets  as the references fail . For instance, the WSJ piece is a general announcement and there is no depth to the piece. So yes, WSJ would talk about a non-notable company if you remember that some companies are notable in the world of venture funding despite not being notable according to Wikipedia guidelines
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:NCORP||WP:ORGCRIT)

Comment: See nothing in this promotional article about a non-notable company. Paid press releases do not meet 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:NCORP)

Comment: While I'm a bit suspicious of the nom's sudden interest in deletion, concur with the above !votes - heavily cited to press releases, the rest is  coverage
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:ROUTINE)

Comment: The criteria for establishing notability is for multiple references (i.e. at least two) that can be classified as|significant coverage with |in-depth information on the company and containing |independent content. Research reports covering the company have long been establishing as meeting the criteria, therefore if two (or more) research reports are referenced, the topic meets the criteria for establishing notability
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:SIGCOV||WP:CORPDEPTH||WP:ORGIND)

Comment: re "which sources are press releases", MedCity News "San Francisco-based patient communication company Luma Health ''announced'' Tuesday", "In the ''news release announcing'' the fundraise, the company stated." Pulse 2.0 "Luma Health ''announced'' it raised $16 million in Series B equity funding", "Luma Health formalized its partnership with Epic and ''announced'' additional EHR integration partnerships." Vator.com "On Tuesday, the company ''announced'' that it raised a $16 million Series B round of funding." Essentially those articles are just summaries of their press releases, with interviews from capital investors or the CEO talking about how great the company will be in the future intermingled in. In no way is that neutral or secondary. It's essentially just a ruse to get investors. Btw, according to  partnerships, found raising, and new product announcements are not usable to establish notability. Id say especially funding. As essentially every startup gets funding when it is first starting out. So, there's nothing unique or notable about it. Especially with these kinds of companies. If you get rid of the four or so articles on that and the few others about products or whatever, there isn't really much left to actually establish notability with
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:NCORP)