Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Healthdirect


 * 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.  So Why  07:32, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

Healthdirect

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This does not look like it meets the WP:GNG. I removed a lot of promo speak that was not sourced from wp:rs. Mostly sourced from the corporate web page and the rest was from connected entities or was used to flesh out the content without talking in depth about the subject. Dlohcierekim (talk) 13:52, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions.  WC  Quidditch   &#9742;   &#9998;  21:47, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions.  WC  Quidditch   &#9742;   &#9998;  21:47, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 04:19, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

With the edits that have been made to the healthdirect page does that mean that it can now be removed from the deletion discussion? I'm not sure how it classifies as Advocacy as it currently appears to just be including facts about the company. It also appears to be similar to other Government pages such as the Department of Health https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Department_of_Health_(Australia) and Ministry of Health NSW https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ministry_of_Health_(New_South_Wales) which has most of its references from it's own website. Or does the page require further edits and sources? --Dneilan (talk) 12:18, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete -- I was going to say, redirect to Department of Health (Australia), but the subject is not mentioned there. I'm unable to find sources that discuss the subject directly and in detail. What comes up is either PR driven or entries in directories and listings. WP:ADVOCACY at this point. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:31, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, it requires less promo and more coverage in not connected to the subject that treat the subject in depth.Dlohcierekim (talk) 13:22, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 01:18, 23 June 2017 (UTC) I have found some more useful sources that can be added to the Healthdirect page. I just want to check the process. Do I edit the current page and then this can be reviewed again?--Dneilan (talk) 03:05, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Please edit the article to include the newly found sources. --Bejnar (talk) 19:42, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: To address 's comment after the last relist

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  So Why  17:18, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete GNG not satisfied, and editing the page to add new sources won't rectify things. The article is completely tainted by the obvious connection to the subject that the author definitely has. If the subject of this article becomes notable in the future, hopefully someone unconnected to the subject will write a neutral article. Exemplo347 (talk) 20:26, 1 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete As a public company it fails WP:ORG; it fails to have either in-depth or significant coverage in independent reliable sources. --Bejnar (talk) 19:42, 7 July 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.