Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/CureMD, Inc

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 delete. Sam Walton (talk) 15:18, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

CureMD, Inc[edit]

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

Promotional piece created for a non-notable company. Ireneshih (talk) 05:27, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:14, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:14, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:14, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:14, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:14, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:14, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as the currently listed sources are simply not solid enough to suggest a better notable article and my searches only found a few several links at Books, News, browsers and Highbeam but perhaps nothing for a better article yet and I would suggest using WP:Articles for creation instead of article mainspace. SwisterTwister talk 21:26, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I don't undestand, why this article does not meet Wikipedia policy. There are neutral point of view, independent sources and many links at News. 27century (talk) 23:54, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

27century There simply are not enough solid in-depth third-party sources overall to solidly satisfy companies notability guidelines. SwisterTwister talk 01:00, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Bloomberg is watching them and #1 KLAS SaaS ranking, a top competitor in the market space.[1],

CureMD, ICDLogic among vendors releasing several tools for tracking, troubleshooting ICD-10
EHR Provider CureMD Selects DrFirst for Electronic Prescribing of Controlled Substances
Quote: Posting an overall score of 85.1 in the KLAS survey, CureMD was praised by providers as offering a simple-to-use EHR and backing it with a “knowledgeable, responsive support team.” Some CureMD customers complained, however, that the software forced them to enter the same data in more than one field. That hassle factor aside, CureMD received the highest score on the survey question, “Would you buy this product again?”

There are sources out there, I removed some hopeless redlinks and the writing could be improved with prose or by skipping the M&As/partnership mentions altogether, but it is a viable article and topic. 009o9 (talk) 08:35, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 20:37, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The only sources I found were press releases, or announcements based on press releases. I removed many of these from the article itself. Of the links above:
- Healthcare finance news: a short product announcement, no analysis
- hitconsultant is an announcement from CureMD: CureMD, a cloud based EHR provider for physician practices has selected DrFirst to provide controlled substance e-prescribing (EPCS) capability to users of CureMD EHR system. "
- Medscape: not accessible without an account, but surely not enough on its own for notability.LaMona (talk) 21:42, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete None of the sources meet WP:CORPDEPTH. For what it's worth, CureMD was salted, having been deleted as spam multiple times. Grayfell (talk) 22:56, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Passes neither WP:GNG nor WP:CORPDEPTH. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:01, 2 January 2016 (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.