Talk:A.D.A.M., Inc.

Reasons for Proposing Deletion

A search on returned Google Web Search hits and Google News Search hits - a lot of them, but a look through them reveals that they are either:

• Information on the company's own website
• Information on other websites which show information gathered from the company's press releases
• Stock and Earnings reports
• Advertising

I did not find any reliable, third-party sources of information about the company and its products (I'll be honest, I didn't look through all the hits, only the first 200 or so).

I looked on the Forbes website, but they didn't list their "Best Small Companies" list from 2006 (I know it was supposed to be 2006, because one of ADAM inc's press released about it came out in 2006).

If someone can find some reliable sources of information, please cite it. A high hit rate on Google does not make a company notable, if they are all basically from the company itself (i.e. press releases). -- PhantomSteve (Contact Me, My Contribs) 09:12, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Incidently, although their "digital human" was notable, I could only find indications of it beign the first such through their press releases and advertising.

Can I remind people of the notability guidelines: If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article. - this does not include press releases from the company itself. -- PhantomSteve (Contact Me, My Contribs) 09:19, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

If the product was notable, as you admit, (whether or not it was the first) the company is very likely to be also. Please notice the meaning of presumed and the wording of the sentence you quote. It does not say that if the sources are not independent of the subject, the subject can be presumed to be non-notable. DGG ( talk ) 14:01, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

The company is publicly traded on NASDAQ. I believe any company traded on NYSE, ASE, or other U.S. stock exchanges including NASDAQ should be wikipedia-notable (although I am not up on what has been consensus). For any one of these, there will be lots of Securities and Exchange Commission filings available, which are reliable sources for many aspects of the firm's business. doncram (talk) 19:51, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on A.D.A.M., Inc.. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090625235838/http://medzio.com:80/ to http://www.medzio.com

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:05, 30 September 2016 (UTC)