Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Direct Care Group


 * 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.  Sandstein  06:30, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Direct Care Group

 * – ( View AfD View log )


 * Delete. Non-notable company. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 21:53, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete - unambiguous advertisement or promotion. No notability and two very thin refs that may be  reportage of press releases.  Velella  Velella Talk  22:43, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions.  — • Gene93k (talk) 23:34, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions.  — • Gene93k (talk) 23:34, 27 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete - I couldn't find anything else aside from those two sources that could support this article. SwisterTwister  talk  02:49, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete. Article claims that the model is unique, yet similar approaches are widespread elsewhere, e.g. here in the UK. JFW &#124; T@lk  08:01, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep - According to the article, the "company partners with doctors to take ownership of practices" - there must be few if any (none I can think of) instances where a company directly owns a concierge medicine practice. Also added another link (increasing to 3) to demonstrate notability. 14:30, 28 August 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.238.64.56 (talk)  — 98.238.64.56 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Keep The article appears to be written in a relatively neutral tone and is backed by three independent references. Further supporting notability is the uniqueness of the business in that while physicians, hospitals, or other health care professionals may own and operate traditional medical practices, the concept of a non-medical business operating a concierge practice is unique. I'm sure there are operational differences that make this even more unique and I would open this up to more community input rather than a deletion. BocceBrent (talk) - 17:53, 28 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete - No coverage in reliable sources. I don't see three independent references in the article.  What I see as of this version are:
 * The website of Society of Direct Care Medicine which is not independent as it clearly states "The Florida Research Partnership (FRP) is a joint effort between the Society and Direct Care Group"
 * A Forbes article about concierge health care which makes no mention of the Direct Care Group that I was able to find.
 * A blog post from Redux Group, a business consulting firm does not constitute a reliable source
 * A press release rehash from Apcovat; press releases aren't independent
 * An American Medical News article about concierge health care that does not mention the Direct Care Group.
 * So I see nothing in the existing references that support Direct Care Group meeting Wikipedia's inclusion guidelines. -- Whpq (talk) 13:55, 29 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete. Agree with Whpq's categorization of the sources.  Because notability is not temporary, a business needs to have some sort of significant effects on history, technology, or culture before becoming an appropriate subject for a stand alone article.  No case for long term significance is made here. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 14:56, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Your definition of notability doesn't match Wikipedia's: "an organization...is notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in secondary sources". Doesn't say it has to have significant effects on history, technology, or culture. ɳorɑfʈ  Talk! 05:23, 30 August 2011 (UTC)


 * While press releases are not independent, a press release that has been reported on by an independent media source is (even if the press release is copied verbatim), because the information contained in it has passed through independent editorial review. Independent editorial review is the very definition of what makes something a third-party source. However, upon closer inspection of Apcovat, it doesn't appear to be professional news anyway, so in this case, the point may be mute. ɳorɑfʈ  Talk! 03:57, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Press releases are never considered independent sources, especially if they are copied verbatim by an independent media source. There is no indication that independent media sources fact check press releases. Cunard (talk) 23:54, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete per 's analysis of the sources. I have scrolled through Google News Archive and have been unable to find any third-party reliable sources. Because this company fails Notability, it should be deleted. Cunard (talk) 23:54, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
 * 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.