Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Doctor Care Anywhere


 * 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. Ad Orientem (talk) 00:50, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

Doctor Care Anywhere

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Promotionalism that has not and probably cannot be fixed: 1/The comparison with uber--see WP:EINSTEIN 2/ wordings like "at any time between 8am and 10 pm to suit their convenience, whether they are in the UK or abroad" 3/the claim to 100,000 members-- does this means people in plans for which this serves as a backup, people who have ever paid the fee, or people who regularly pay the fee, or people who have used the service. 4/the extraordinary claim of delivering prescriptions worldwide -- each country has local laws relevant to this--I know it's in the source, but it indicates to me the source is unreliable   5/but especially the last paragraph which is essentially intended to show the need for the company--it does not--it rather implies the need for companies such as this,  of which there are many, There is no statement of the actual financials or contracting physicians or number of services provided. And there's one essential thing missing: the corporate website.  DGG ( talk ) 08:38, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 11:08, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 11:08, 2 June 2017 (UTC)


 * These statements are all provided by independent reputable sources. The company's claims are not presented uncritically. More criticism would improve the article. The survey is not presented as saying anything about the need for the company.  It's there because the company commissioned it.Rathfelder (talk) 17:51, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep Seems to meet notablity criteria and references supplied are adequate and reasonable sources. Recent/edits have improved it. It does still read slightly like an advert still in places, but not enough to warrant deletion. However, definitely could warrant with further revisions by the original author and others to make it more encyclopaedic. LordHarris  22:45, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:21, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:21, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Delete as spam; strictly promotional. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:29, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 08:42, 9 June 2017 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Note that the article was significantly copy edited on 10 June 2017, after the first relisting of this discussion, to address concerns with promotionalism. pinging participants in this discussion, who may not be aware of these recent significant changes that have occurred.
 * marginal keep delete I cleaned it up as much as possible - removed press releases and clear churnalism refs and unencyclopedic language.   I think it just squeaks by.  Jytdog (talk) 06:31, 10 June 2017 (UTC) (NB - not enough left, per note below. changed !vote. Jytdog (talk) 21:58, 16 June 2017 (UTC))

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 09:49, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
 * User:DGG as the nom, what do you think of the article now? If it still is not appropriate in your view, that would swing my vote. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 20:02, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
 * yes, the promotionalism has been removed. But, as I predicted, that removed so much of the material that there is not enough left for an article. The references are essentially press releases or mentions.  The article is curently saying "it exists".  DGG ( talk ) 21:25, 16 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Unchanged -- still promotionalism (an exec was "honoured") & routine news announcements. Just a private company going about its business. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:45, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
 * delete fails GNG.Dlohcierekim (talk) 07:19, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete. The stub is much better than before. Their work is laudatory. However, I'm not convinced this version yet meets the standard for rescues. Even the added articles are local in scope. Please ping me if a further attempt is made to save this one. Bearian (talk) 00:19, 24 June 2017 (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.