Deletion of HealthTap

Comment: HealthTap passes both Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline and Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)#Primary criteria. The sources I provided meet Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)#Significant coverage, 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 Wikipedia:Permastub|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 ." – every article under https://www.forbes.com/ is under the "sites" section, regardless of whether it's written by |a staff member or CON|a contributor. To say that the "sites" section "is widely acknowledged as not having editorial oversight and fails " 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
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Reliable sources (WP:RS||WP:FORBES||WP:FORBESCON||WP:RS)

Comment: References are the classic bad sources per NCORP ( "dependent coverage"). Forbes non-staff, VentureBeat etc. There is no "New York Times article". This discussion is being tactically flooded
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:ORGIND)

Comment: I note that Cunard is using the GNG as the applicable guidelines to decide on notability and not  which is for organizations/companies. Also, as per https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Notability#Request_for_Comment_on_the_Subject-specific_notability_guidelines_(SNG) 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
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:NCORP)

Comment: 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
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Deletion process (WP:NOQUORUM||WP:SOFTDELETE)