Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cue Health

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 no consensus. No policy-based consensus was achieved. (non-admin closure) ––FormalDude talk 00:11, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Cue Health

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Based on discussion with HighKing at Talk:Cue Health... the entity fails at WP:ORGIND. WP:TOOSOON. Hence, calling for an AfD discussion to generate a wider and unbiased consensus. - Hatchens (talk) 00:39, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Hatchens (talk) 00:39, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 00:50, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 00:50, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep it is a billion-dollar valuation company and has received hundreds of millions of dollars in funding from the US government. New articles have been written about it as recently as a few days ago.Wgullyn (talk) 02:03, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I believe there may be grounds for notability, but the references have to be centered more on the subject and not repeated coverage of the kit (e.g., [1], [2], [3]) Multi7001 (talk) 03:18, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Most of the articles cited involve the subject's developed COVID-19 kit and funding for the health kit, but does not cover the subject itself. The coverage about the kit could make a case for its own page in the articlespace or a merge in the COVID-19 pages. But with regards to the subject (the company), coverage by Forbes indicates some notability [4], as a nearly $2B valuation is very rare for a company; however, the valuation is a direct result of the health kit and not much coverage of the company itself or its founders. It seems like it might be a case of WP:TOOSOON. Multi7001 (talk) 03:02, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify as WP:ATD on the basis that it is likely that this company may be written about in analyst reports and may also be written about outside of the funding and deal announcements given the topic company's growth and profile. But right now, none of the references meet NCORP criteria for establishing notability and it appears to be a case of WP:TOOSOON. HighKing⁺⁺ 15:17, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I'm glad I logged back in to add a photo or I wouldn't have seen this rapid deletion nomination. I just did a WP:BEFORE and found more recent coverage of the company, which I added. The coverage includes CNBC reporting that the company is providing test data to Google, so this is about more than its testing device. And a more careful reading of WP:TOOSOON shows that "If sources do not exist, it is generally too soon for an article on that topic to be considered." In this case, there are plenty of sources about the company, not just the test: San Diego Business Journal, San Diego Union Tribune, Forbes and TechCrunch. Meets WP:NCORP. This is a good article, and I'm not just saying that because I wrote it. TechnoTalk (talk) 21:41, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Those articles are considered reliable, even though most of them are just a published piece derived from a press release. However, nearly all of the media coverage of Cue Health is centered around the COVID-19 kit and funding for it. I wouldn't see any problem with their product having its own page in the articlespace. But for the company itself, it seems like it may still be a case of WP:TOOSOON. Multi7001 (talk) 23:38, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Sourcing is sufficient to demonstrate notability, per above. First FDA approved home Covid molecular test. Multi-billion public company. Customers include Google, the NBA and the US Government. Everything sourced with reliable third party media coverage. Converting the article to a Covid test article won't be very elegant. Non-product information includes the public launch and corresponding unicorn valuation. Cidrap [[5]] writes that the company is working on other tests. I did a quick Google search and added a short Newsweek piece from December. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 21:43, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The UM Cidrap article is not independent, since its content is merely based on the press release it links at the end. And the Newsweek article is not an independent source either and cannot establish notability, since it is a promotional article with a monetary partnership and affiliate marketing objectives, as disclosed at the bottom. Multi7001 (talk) 00:52, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There appears to be some confusion on whether references that review/discuss/opine on a product/service can be used to establish the notability of the company. In a nutshell, they cannot. NCORP is the guideline to use for articles on companies/organizations *or* products/services. Nowhere in NCORP does it say that the notability (or references discussing) one can establish notability of the other. For example, the Newsweek article added by Timtempleton above says nothing about the company, therefore it cannot be used to establish notability of the company. The point made by Multi7001 - that perhaps the references would assist in establishing the notability of their test kit and therefore an article on the test kit may meet our notability requirements is valid and correct. HighKing⁺⁺ 16:26, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
UTC)
Comment: The company sources that clearly meet WP:NCORP were pointed out above. An experienced closer will review the sourcing themselves. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 17:24, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Response There are 21 sources and while some editors have vaguely said some meet NCORP, none appear in a position to support their assertion when challenged, other than to reiterate the vagueness of their original comment. Here's an analysis of the sources (I've grouped similar types together where possible) - can you point to any *one* of these sources that meets NCORP? I'm looking for any individual reference that meets both ORGIND and CORPDEPTH. Thanks.

These ones are all clearly based on company announcements. None of these add anything that meets the ORGIND definition for "Independent Content" which is original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. San Diego Business Journal, [Fierce Biotech, San Diego Union-Tribune, Reuters and GovTech website references are entirely based and rely on information/interview/quotes provided by the company and/or execs. They have no "Independent Content" and all fail ORGIND
DarkDaily reference is based entirely on a company announcement with more information from a blog post and more still from this MobiHealthNews reference which relies on from the FDA. Despite all that, both articles still have next to zero information *about* the company. Both reference fail both CORPDEPTH and ORGIND.
There are three TechCrunch references. As per WP:TECHCRUNCH this website is not reliable for establishing notability. Leaving that aside, the first article is based entire on announcements and an interview with the founders with no "Independent Content", fails ORGIND. The next is also regurgitating "more good news" from the topic company and has almost zero information about the company, fails ORGIND and CORPDEPTH. The third also has no "Independent Content" failing ORGIND.
CIDRAP reference is based on an announcement of a partnership from one of the companies in the partnership and references this Press Release from the topic company, that isn't "Independent Content", fails ORGIND.
This from Fox Business has zero information on the company and includes information taken from a government test program, fails ORGIND and CORPDEPTH
This from CNBC is based on an announcement from the Dept of Health and Human Services and has next to almost no information about the company, just the testing program and the tests themselves, fails ORGIND and CORPDEPTH
This from MobileHealthNews has zero in-depth information *about* the company, fails CORPDEPTH
The Forbes reference is a puff piece and is based entirely on information provided by the company or their execs. I've read is a couple of times but it has nothing that could be classified as in-depth information on the company that didn't originate from the company themselves and there's also a lot that isn't "Independent Content". Fails both ORGIND and CORPDEPTH
This next one from Fierce Biotech is based on this Press Release from the NBA (same quotes too) and has no "Independent Content", fails ORGIND. Similarly, this letter on the FDA website to the CEO has zero in-depth info about the company, fails CORPDEPTH
This from Newsweek mentioned above, is three sentences long and says zero about the company, fails CORPDEPTH
This CNBC reference is a mention-in-passing and has zero info about the company, fails CORPDEPTH
This from Fierce Biotech relies entirely on information/quotes from the company/execs. It has zero information about the company, fails both CORPDEPTH and ORGIND
This CNBC reference is part of the PR in relation to the company floating on the Nasdaq exchange. It is a summary of the company's activities to date peppered with interviews/quotations from execs and information available in their prospectus. There is no "Independent Content" and fails ORGIND.

I'm happy to discuss any of the above sources. If you'd like to point to a particular paragraph in any of those articles that meets *both* ORGIND and CORPDEPTH, just link it below. HighKing⁺⁺ 20:03, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The CNBC reference looks fine to me, tbh. It's by an established reporter, and talking about a company's activities to date in the context of its latest activities would, I'm fairly sure, qualify as original content. There is also some amount of original reporting, for example:

"'Of the remaining $34.8 million in revenue, $28.9 million was from a "single enterprise customer,"' Cue Health said. Khattak declined to name that customer, but people familiar with the matter confirmed to CNBC that it’s Google. The people asked not to be identified because the information is confidential.....Cue Health could still be a particularly risky bet for investors because the company hasn’t proven it has a market outside of Covid-19 tests."

I haven't looked at any of the other sources given, but this one seems good to me.

Yitz (talk) 03:57, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

OK, lets take a close look at that paragraph (I assume its the last CNBC reference). The first part of the para is a direct quote from Cue Health so no "Independent Content" there. The parts associated with "people familiar with the matter" are anonymous and that fails WP:RS. So you're left with the last sentence about an investment being a "particularly risky bet" but the very next para identifies that this info came from the prospectus The company acknowledges that issue at the beginning of the risk factors section in its prospectus. “Our COVID-19 test is currently our only commercially available test,” the filing says. “Our limited commercial operating history may make it difficult to evaluate our current business and predict our future performance.” so for me, that's a single sentence which cannot be clearly attributed to the reporter and has no in-depth info on the company. HighKing⁺⁺ 11:28, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for reiterating the breadth and depth of coverage, for both the company and the tests. You're welcome to challenge Newsweek, CNBC, Fox Business, Forbes and TechCrunch on the reliable sources noticeboard. All but CNBC are listed there already, and none are deprecated, so there will be plenty of discussions for your to review and rehash if you see fit. I don't have time to count but I see Fierce Biotech used to source hundreds of articles [[6]], so there's also consensus that those are good sources. I've had this discussion with Highking and Scope Creep before, but I hope you don't think that the only media coverage worth sharing comes from a company reporter independently coming up with the story? So if a company announces an acquisition or product or funding and it's reported, then it's automatically not newsworthy? Of course not - that would be ridiculous. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 18:40, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You appear to be labouring under a simple misinterpretation/misunderstaning of our guidelines - sorry to be blunt - but I'll explain again. There are essentially two types of sources. Those that can be used to support facts within an article and those that can be used to establish notability. You're arguing that the various publications are all reliable - yup, not disagreeing with that, I'm sure they are. You say there's consensus that they're "good" sources - sure, if you mean reliable, fine. But that doesn't mean they meet NCORP criteria for establishing notability which has additional criteria. So yeah - if an article in a noteworthy reliable publication (say the NYT or something) publishes an article (so no connection between publisher and topic company) that relies entirely on a press release for the information (therefore not "intellectually independent" - see ORGIND) then it cannot be used to establish notability *only*. You can go ahead and use it for any other reason. At AfD we don't care about the other reasons, just establishing notability. This isn't a difficult concept to grasp. So when I say that an article relied entirely on information/quotations provided by the company/execs, I'm not saying there's a fault or impugning the reputation of the journalist/publisher, I'm only saying that this cannot be used to establish the notability of the company. HighKing⁺⁺ 19:59, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I'm surprised this was challenged. More coverage added. Fast Company article from today inviting readers to "Meet the COVID-19 testing company behind one of Google’s most coveted perks". It meets *both* ORGIND and CORPDEPTH. Might some consider changing their draftify vote? TechnoTalk (talk) 19:15, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Response I don't think you understand ORGIND and CORPDEPTH. That article is *entirely* based on an interview with Mr. Sever backed up with info from a standard a company briefing/info pack. Can you point to any part of that article that is in-depth and can be "clearly attributed" to a source unaffiliated with the company? Even the FDA Press Release only talks about the products (which are not the topic for this article) and nothing about the company. HighKing⁺⁺ 20:37, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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.