From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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. The stronger arguments from the delete votes edge out the numerical parity. Guerillero Parlez Moi 12:18, 25 July 2022 (UTC) reply

DrDoctor

AfDs for this article:

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

DrDoctor (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log | edits since nomination)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Lack of reliable independent media coverage needed for private companies. WP:NCORP and WP:CORPDEPTH Bash7oven ( talk) 12:05, 30 June 2022 (UTC) reply

  • The coverage in the Health Service Journal is both independent and detailed as is that on gov.uk. This is a very substantial supplier of services to the NHS. Deletion would damage our coverage of the NHS. There is quite detailed coverage on the websites of many NHS hospitals. Rathfelder ( talk) 12:28, 30 June 2022 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:31, 7 July 2022 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Suggest review of sources, as to whether they genuinely meet WP:CORPDEPTH for the company.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TigerShark ( talk) 02:46, 15 July 2022 (UTC) reply

  • Delete The keep arguments above all parrot those used in the original AfD - 'There's loads of coverage' - but there's not. Let's remember the higher bar set for WP:NCORP, "a stronger emphasis on quality of the sources to prevent gaming of the rules by marketing and public relations professionals" and bear in mind that the very impressive Forbes article is from 'Sites', user generated with no editorial oversight, so not RS. Trade magazine/website 'Digital Health' happily runs NHS/DrDr announcements and the rest of our coverage here is stories quoting DrDr execs - or NHS announcements using DrDr as a proof point. Are we looking at "significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject"??? We are not, we are looking at PR pieces, company announcements, incidental commentary and routine funding rounds. Best Alexandermcnabb ( talk) 11:14, 15 July 2022 (UTC) reply
  • NHS announcements - and there are lots of them - are reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject. They arent marketing and public relations professionals. They are NHS managers explaining to patients how they use the product. The GOV.UK Digital Marketplace gives a very long and detailed exposition of the system. That seems a pretty objective quality source. This is now a significant contributor to NHS services and that makes it notable. Rathfelder ( talk) 22:52, 15 July 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Delete because none of the references meet NCORP criteria for establishing notability. The various references and other sources (those that are not PRIMARY and pass RS) have the same thing in common - they all rely entirely on interviews/quotations, announcements/PR and supplemented with descriptions and other information provided by the company. Wikipedia is not a platform for advertising, nor a Yellow Pages. Here's a brief review of the sources as requested:
Perhaps TOOSOON but to date, we can only see company-originated and investor/customer-originated noise, this is insufficient to meet NCORP criteria. HighKing ++ 17:44, 18 July 2022 (UTC) reply
      • The article in the Health Service Journal [1] is both detailed and objective. Gov.uk has a very substantial analysis of the service. The Digital Marketplace is as objective as you get. A great deal of NHS resource has been devoted to it. I dont see where you think objective information would come from if not from customers. Rathfelder ( talk) 21:34, 19 July 2022 (UTC) reply

References

  1. ^ "Recovery Watch: The great follow-ups revolution". Health Service Journal. 13 April 2022. Retrieved 26 April 2022.
  • I think there is a fundamental misconception here. Its not the company which is notable. Its the product - the software. That is why there are explanations of it on the website of at least 40 NHS Trusts. Rathfelder ( talk) 07:42, 22 July 2022 (UTC) reply
    • The article literally starts with the immortal words "DrDoctor is a booking and patient interaction software company based in London." Best Alexandermcnabb ( talk) 07:45, 22 July 2022 (UTC) reply
      • True. But that doesnt necessarily mean that is what makes the topic notable. We could recast the article. Most of the content is about the software. Rathfelder ( talk) 10:37, 22 July 2022 (UTC) reply
        • Are there any particular sources about the software (reviews say?) that you feel meets NCORP? The fact that it appears on the website of at least 40 NHS trusts doesn't work on its own as they are customers and therefore connected to the topic company and not Independent. HighKing ++ 21:52, 24 July 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.
Retrieved from " https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/DrDoctor_(2nd_nomination)&oldid=1100343343"