Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/DrDoctor

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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:47, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

DrDoctor

[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)

None of the references meet NCORP's criteria for establishing notability. The references all rely on company announcements or PR. HighKing 12:00, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Software and United Kingdom. HighKing 12:00, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There is plenty of coverage in independent sources. Coverage of most companies is based on company announcements. Its a significant player in the British NHS. Rathfelder (talk) 14:22, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:NCORP requires multiple sources (at least two) of deep or significant coverage with in-depth information *on the company* and (this bit is important!) containing "Independent Content". "Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. This is usually the criteria where most references fail. References cannot rely only on information provided by the company, quotations, press releases, announcements, interviews fail ORGIND. Whatever is left over must also meet CORPDEPTH. Certainly "plenty of coverage" is not part of the criteria, especially (as you've admitted) is based on company announcements. HighKing 21:08, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- There is independent content in the HSJ coverage and in the stuff from NHS trusts. Rathfelder (talk) 22:27, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  - You won't get your point across without at least linking to the "coverage" and at least referring to (or even better, pointing to the para number which contains) the "Independent Content" within those references. Also, the "Independent Content" must pass CORPDEPTH/SIGCOV. Can you do that? HighKing 10:55, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  - As for your claim of "independent content" - did you not even notice the "Written by DrDoctor" graphic on the articles? HighKing 13:00, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - there are plenty of independent sources. I will leave it to Rathfelder to choose some. Oculi (talk) 13:55, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- The question is whether there is coverage. Not whether its in the article. The HSJ coverage is in considerable depth. Rathfelder (talk) 12:55, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  - The HSJ articles have a big hard-to-miss graphic entitled "Written by DrDoctor" on them. Not independent. Fails ORGIND. HighKing 13:00, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    - Not this one: [1] Rathfelder (talk) 15:43, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      - True, but that particular article discusses scrapping follow-up appointments and PIFU Pathways and asks the CEO, Tom Whicher, for his views. This is neither significant (fails SIGCOV) nor contains in-depth information on the company (fails CORPDEPTH) nor has any "Independent Content" (fails ORGIND) since it blindly reprints everything the CEO has to say and nothing more. Was there any particular part of that article that you believe met NCORP? Did you read the article (after all, it is behind a paywall)? HighKing 21:24, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:39, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think you are misrepresenting the Health Service Journal report. They are examining the company's claims critically and comparing what they say with the views of NHS managers. Its significant because follow-up appointments and PIFU Pathways are the main claim of notability of the company and very significant in the impact of technology on the NHS. Rathfelder (talk) 22:46, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- What do you mean that the article/journalist is "examining the company's claims critically"? The journalist simply prints what the topic company says and reprints what everyone else that has been quoted says. Where's the critical analysis? Where's the WP:ORGIND "Independent Content"? Point me to a paragraph? But even if we were to agree to disagree on that point, where's the in-depth analysis of the topic company which is required to meet WP:CORPDEPTH? The WP:SIRS section of NCORP clearly states that an article must fulfill all the criteria in order to be counted towards notability criteria. HighKing 11:03, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There is plenty of independent coverage and this organisation is important to coverage of the NHS. Bigwig7 (talk) 19:16, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Hey Bigwig7, saying that the "organisation is important" isn't a reason to Keep in our NCORP guideline, that's just an opinion. You say there's plenty of "independent coverage" - that might be a reason to keep but you haven't provided any links and references must meet NCORP. Please provide some links. HighKing 13:49, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: WP:SOURCESEXIST is a weak argument.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Joe (talk) 00:12, 12 May 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.