Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Doctify


 * 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. Per detailed source analysis Spartaz Humbug! 09:34, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

Doctify

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Fails WP:NCORP. Non-notable startup.  scope_creep Talk  10:47, 31 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 11:51, 31 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 11:51, 31 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 11:51, 31 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 11:51, 31 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 11:51, 31 October 2020 (UTC)


 * 11 separate independent sources, some with quite substantial coverage. Rathfelder (talk) 13:15, 31 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep - Google news has over 250 hits, which rather undermines the claim in the nom. Oculi (talk) 19:06, 31 October 2020 (UTC)
 * That Gnews search is picking up a whole load of low-quality content like press-release, product announcements, stuff like that, e.g. the first entry is a press-release. We will go though the refs.    scope_creep Talk  19:26, 31 October 2020 (UTC)
 * The 2nd one is press-release. A google news search isn't good companies. Biographical articles, certainly, but not companies.   scope_creep Talk  19:28, 31 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Delete Not a single reference meets the criteria for establishing notability. The criteria for establishing notability for companies/organizations as per WP:NCORP is for multiple sources (at least two) of 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. None of the references in the article meet the criteria and having searched I am unable to locate any references that meet the criteria. Topic fails GNG/WP:NCORP.  HighKing++ 19:01, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
 * The Evening Standard article is quite detailed. Rathfelder (talk) 23:24, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
 * It a press-release.  scope_creep Talk  23:44, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Not a Press Release, but churnalism. It is publicity generated by the company and follows the age-old formula of founders-profile/description-of-problem/aha-moment/struggles-and-sacrifice/success-and-good-vibes/funding/future-outlook and also comes with the obligatory photo (provided by the company). It relies 100% and entirely on information provided by the company and interview/quotations for any "facts". If fails WP:ORGIND because if you remove everything from the article that was provided by a source connected to the company, there's absolutely nothing left and certainly not enough for WP:CORPDEPTH.  HighKing++ 14:23, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 06:52, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Most articles about companies have lots of content "provided by a source connected to the company". Where else would it come from? Rathfelder (talk) 09:01, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Exactly! So how is someone supposed to know the difference between PR/Promotion and facts. The exact reason you've quoted is why Wikipedia was (and still is) inundated with spammy articles on companies. It is also the reason why WP:NCORP was changed in 2019 to emphasise the quality of references that are required and the guidelines are simple - no spam, no promotion, no announcements, no run-of-the-mill financial statement, no "interviews". No regurgitated company-spawned material. If a company is notable, somebody somewhere will take notice and write about them. If they're not notable, nobody will bother which is about 99.9% of most companies.  HighKing++ 22:12, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
 * These small private companies (startups) don't by definition, have coverage. Unless they have somebody really well known on their board, they are generally brand new and unknown to market, What they do have is an advertising budget, they must become known. So it is advertising like coverage you get, PR, churnalism, press-release, social media content, to bring attention to landing page, or website. It is ultra shallow information and non-notable. We will go through the references and examine them.    scope_creep Talk  09:35, 7 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Comment Reference review,
 * * Entrepreneurs: Camden start-up Doctify aims to become the go-to online health platform The founders doing an interview, with a smiling face. Fails WP:ORGIND.
 * * Tech Pitch: Doctify Same picture. Fails WP:ORGIND.
 * * Same ref. Same picture. Fails WP:ORGIND.
 * * Same ref. Same picture. Fails WP:ORGIND.
 * * Doctify.co.uk celebrates two years disrupting the healthcare industry Press-release, from the press-room.
 * * Dead link, but it a funding announcement. Fails WP:CORPDEPTH. Standard announcements, including funding news.
 * * Dead link.
 * * 'Uber for doctors' raises funds Funding news. Oliver Thomas, chief executive of Doctify, tells Sky's Ian King about the appointment app service and its latest fund-raising efforts Standard announcements. Fails WP:CORPDEPTH, WP:ORGIND.
 * * Own site Self-published content. WP:SPIP.
 * * Doctify secures series A investment Standard announcement. Fails WP:CORPDEPTH

They rest of the references are the same. Fails WP:NCORP.  scope_creep Talk  09:48, 7 November 2020 (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.