Deletion of Meddy

Comment: I feel the references within the article provide sufficient suitable sourcing to pass . If someone has the capability (or a better translator than google!) to look in the local languages that might grant us a bit more detail
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:NCORP)

Comment: Not one of the references meet the criteria for establishing notability (in any language). Eastmain's references also fail (see above). There are no intellectually independent references and the invariably fails . Wikipedia is not a platform for promotion and is not a type of Yellow Pages platform. Topic fails GNG and 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:ORGIND||WP:NCORP)

Comment: Hi {{u|Eastmain}} - you appear to be interpreting  and  incorrectly. You appear to leave out the fact that references must also be intellectually independent (not rely extensively on interviews/quotations from company sources and company announcements mainly). One really good indicator is a reference to explicitly contain opinion/analysis of the journalist (always ticks the box for me). A really good tip for recognizing promo pieces is to look for puffery and corpo-speak along with photos and selected "quotations" to make points. The http://www.incarabia.com/launch/meet-the-digital-docs-trying-to-fix-healthcare-delivery-in-doha/ Arabia reference is a classic churnalistic promo piece (posed photo, interview with founders, describe aha moment, promote solution, talk about funding, etc). Nothing in this article is the opinion of the journalist. Completely and utterly fails . The https://dohanews.co/cmuq-students-grads-launch-new-website-rating-doctors-qatar/ Doha News reference is a puff piece published by a source which, in my view, fails . But leaving that aside, it appears to rely extensively on selected quotations from a company source, contains direct links covering promotional stories to the company website and contains phrases such as "The portal, Meddy, is the brainchild of recent Carnegie Mellon University in Qatar (CMUQ) graduate, 21-year-old Haris Aghadi." and "Explaining the inspiration behind the project", Reference is not intellectually independent and fails . I agree that the http://www.qatar-tribune.com/news-details/id/26257 Qatar Tribune reference contains "extensive information about Meddy" but that is because it is based on a Press Release from the company. Another example https://www.qatar.cmu.edu/news/meddy-healthcare-site-launches-arabic/ appears here (notice the same text and quote). Clearly not intellectually independent. Clearly fails . Finally, https://www.wamda.com/2015/01/m-health-apps-to-watch the review in Wanda (which is a questionable source that may not meet  contains no intellectually independent opinion or analysis, relies extensively on quotations from the founders, and also fails 
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:ORGIND||WP:CORPDEPTH||WP:ORGIND||WP:RS||WP:ORGIND||WP:ORGIND||WP:RS||WP:ORGIND)

Comment: regarding the sources posted by Eastmain,  The Wamda article doesn't have any in-depth information, it's just one of four "Startups to watch". I don't even know if Wamda would be considered . Inc Magazine is borderline, I'm on the fence about whether it should be used at all - I couldn't find any meaningful information about the publication, its circulation or its reputation for fact checking - so I'm leaning towards no
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Reliable sources (WP:RS)