Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Athletico Physical Therapy

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. ✗plicit 14:48, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Athletico Physical Therapy

[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)

Appears to fail WP:NCORP. Sourcing mainly consists of press releases, WP:CORPTRIV routine announcements, and non-independent sources. WP:BEFORE search wasn't of much help, mostly directory listings and passing mentions. Left guide (talk) 07:24, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Medicine, Sports, and Illinois. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:46, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Cant find any coverage to speak of. Gave up a few pages after the yelp reviews. Alpha3031 (t • c) 00:56, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, if you search on "Althletico" quite a lot comes up (not the football team). While it is not the world's largest PT, it is a well established one; I have in fact twice been a customer. I wonder if a detailed WP:BEFORE was done using all permutations. Ldm1954 (talk) 14:53, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Ldm1954, I don't think I've seen you on CORP AFDs much, just wanted to quickly confirm if you're aware normally a lot of the search results we normally see are press releases, which are excluded under WP:ORGIND. For example, of the first 15 google results on my end for Athletico -paranaense about the company instead of the football club ([1] [2] [3] [4] [5][6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15]) only one (number 6 on the list) is not a press release, and even that is local coverage of the type of charity activities companies often do for publicity and composed of mostly quotes from the organisations involved. This is quite a common situation for NCORP because most companies interested in that kind of thing will put out press releases very regularly but it does mean that the number of times it comes up in search results (ghits) even when confirmed to be about the subject is quite often less useful for establishing notability than many other subjects. Alpha3031 (t • c) 22:56, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Alpha3031 I am not that familiar with CORP AfDs, although I have come across quite a few startups described in academic BLPs as part of claims for notability. I am also familiar with churnalism as that occurs with too many science blogs. Three points first:
I did not know much about PT, but over the last few years I have learned. I would not class the PT employees the same as nurses, but they are certainly grossly underpaid and their role is not that different.

It is a pretty bad page, clearly it was written by a novice as it does not hit the appropriate topics.

As an educated guess, each location sees 40 patients per day which, with repeat visits comes to about 100 per week. When the numbers are combined I think this is a significant health care effort.
Beyond that, the sources you quote in fact have material which I think should have been used:
([1] quotes the Big10 VP which could be used

[3] is an award from Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services which can perhaps be found.

[7] is from another company so is independent.

[10] has quotes from the Chicago Bears which could be used.
There might be more. There is a YouTube channel here which at a minimum goes as an external link Ldm1954 (talk) 17:42, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, in theory, some of these sources could plausibly provide information in an article, but the main point is we need sources establishing notability in the first place in accordance with WP:NORG. The three numbered points don't address Wikipedia notability. As to those sources, the Chicago Bears are a football team who appear to be one of the PT company's clients, so not an independent source, that's a WP:COISOURCE. The YouTube video is published by the company's account, so clearly not an independent source either. PRNewswire (or at least the link you provided) simply regurgitates press releases by the company, so obviously not independent either. The material published by another company that you claim to be independent is actually a WP:COISOURCE because it says NextGen Healthcare, Inc…announced its extended agreement with Athletico Physical Therapy. The article hosted on the Malaysian Reserve states that it's copied from PRNewswire which means it's another regurgitated press release. Left guide (talk) 01:55, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:30, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Another one of these 'sponsor everything but hard drugs' physical therapy chains that just blanket multiple Midwest markets and teams; yes, they're notable and advertise everywhere, but they provide a WP:MILL service that unless you get paid for a testimonial or send a novel to the BBB because they broke a rib, you're not going to hear non-neutral sources about them easily. Nate • (chatter) 22:45, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Most of the sources are usual run of the mill or routine coverages. I am not convinced by the sources presented with the keep !voter either. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 11:44, 5 November 2024 (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.