Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Healthera


 * 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. Randykitty (talk) 06:05, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

Healthera

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

lots of pr, but not yet notable according to WP:NCORP  DGG ( talk ) 09:34, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete. Fails WP:NORG. Coverage is either in-depth or in form of rewritten press releses about business-as-usual/invest-in-us. Some refs are broken, claims to be from Business Weakly but takes us to a broken 404 page at some  is a commercial business networking organisation, which I guess means spam-distributor, and I guess they didn't pay their fee to have their spam sources up? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here  09:38, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 10:09, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 10:09, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 10:09, 17 June 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep To address the concerns of broken links, they have been updated (since the links were originally accessed months ago, and website URLs have apparently moved around since then), specifically link 1 as you mentioned above. Furthermore, I contend for the notability of Healthera as the sources articles show a large amount of coverage involving speculation about the company's plans, direction, and technological outlook. A source has also been added talking about recent controversies about Healthera in its working with the NHS. Piotrus, please try not to use such a patronizing tone as I don't believe it helps in any sort of discussion. Sliu.3110 (talk) 10:16, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
 * ref 1is a notice of funding
 * ref 2 is to its listing on an apps site
 * ref 3 is a notice of funding
 * ref 4 is an announcement with quotes from the founder,written as pr
 * ref 5 is a notice of funding
 * ref 6 is an announcement from the firm sponsoring the system
 * ref 7 is a notice of funding
 * ref 8 is a notice of funding
 * ref 9 is anannouncement it won a contract, with quotes from the founder, written as pr
 * ref 10 is a listing on a very nonselective "companies to watch"
 * ref 11, however, is an actual news item . It was added after I nominated the article.
 * one RS is not enough for an article. And from the history of the article, a draft for it  it was properly rejected at AfC, and the contributor then made the same item outside AfC, The pattern is typical of a coi editor trying to evade the  system provided for coi editors  DGG ( talk ) 16:05, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
 * , the guidelines state that multiple references are required to meet the criteria for establishing notability (unless we're talking about an obscure topic - the example provided for only one reference in WP:NCORP is a Bangladeshi women's rights organization from the 1960s).  HighKing++ 17:38, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
 * , right, though I interpret this as depending on the source as well  as the  subject. As a particularly clear example, a NYT full obit by itself has almost always been acepted as proving notability--so would one official source demonstrating a major national prize, or participation in the recognized presumptive notability levels of athletics, or for many geographical features. For companies, it would be very rare, just as you say.  DGG ( talk ) 23:51, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for your feedback. The volume of references, however, does suggest significant interest on the company. Calling refs 1, 3, 5, 7, 8 merely all notices of funding is an understatement, especially as they provide significant depth and insight towards the company beyond funding, especially references 1 and 3, though it is true that some of the other references are less in depth and do focus on funding, which is again not on its own a disqualification of a source as independent, significant, and thorough coverage. Sliu.3110 (talk) 16:29, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
 * You might want to re-read WP:NCORP: From section 2. 2 Significant coverage: "Quantity does not determine significance. It is the quality of the content that governs. A collection of multiple trivial sources do not become significant" and from section 2.2.1: Examples of trivial coverage that do not count toward meeting the significant coverage requirement: "standard notices, brief announcements, and routine coverage, such as: ...of the expansions, acquisitions, mergers, sale, or closure of the business,; of a capital transaction, such as raised capital; ....inclusion in lists of similar organizations, particularly in "best of", "top 100", "fastest growing" or similar lists," DGG ( talk ) 19:33, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

Some of the sources are rather 'trivial' in the sense that there is no journalistic coverage and they focus on funding, or the "best of"/"top 100" lists you mentioned. These sources alone do not qualify an article for notability, however these are not the only sources provided. The inclusion of these sources do not therefore disqualify an article for notability. Please direct your attention to the four significant articles below:

Source is titled "Healthera set for further growth after £3m Series A", thus talking about the company's plans after the funding round. It discusses Healthera's impact on the platform partnering with NHS clinical commissioning groups: "As of September 3, the new approach by Healthera and DGS CCG will replace traditional methods of ordering through the pharmacy or GP... Together Healthera and the DGS CCG aim to help the NHS reduce medicine wastage, eliminate congestion in the prescriptions hotline, and empower community pharmacies to play a more active role in the patient’s healthcare while reducing manual workload." This whole section is discussing a shift in the healthcare industry, and is not related to funding at all.

Source is not a funding article, as the title "Healthera in £1 million digital healthcare coup" refers to a partnership linking traditional Health IT and the growing Digital Health sector. For example, the article discusses Healthera's patent-pending "Prescription Processing Engine" in depth, and how it will be used in conjunction with pharmacy IT services.

Source is a blog post by a former NHS official, Associate Director of Medicines Optimisation Diar Fattah, talking about Healthera's likely impact in their locality. Fattah is a known authority in his own industry, so his blog post on an official NHS website confers legitimacy and reliability of the information provided.

Source, which you have already mentioned briefly, is an article talking about the controversy brought by Healthera's introduction into the Dartford, Gravesham, and Swanley CCG's ordering system. Sliu.3110 (talk) 08:26, 24 June 2019 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 11:17, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep I acknowledge the careful analysis of both DGG and Sliu.3110 here and thank both for their work, but I am more persuaded by the latter. For example, DGG describes reference 2 as "listing on an apps site", but the NHS Apps library (so far) is highly selective and listing achieved only after a complex review process. Likewise, I agree with Sliu.3310 that the nhsconfed.org post, while called a blog, constitutes significant coverage that will have been through an editorial process. Bondegezou (talk) 13:47, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete In my opinion, none of the references meet the criteria for establishing notability. The Chemist and Druggist reference is not in-depth and there is no evidence of original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject as is required as per WP:ORGIND. The reasoning provided by Siliu.3310 and supported by Bondegezou is not based on policies or guidelines and, in fact, is contrary to WP:NCORP guidelines. References that are based on company announcements (such as funding announcements) may be used to support facts or information within the article (so long as they are from reliable sources, etc) but are not counted towards meeting the criteria for establishing notability and fail WP:ORGIND. Blog posts are not considered reliable sources and shouldn't be used for any reason. A listing on an apps site does not provide any in-depth information on the company and fails WP:CORPDEPTH. The criteria for notability is fairly strict for companies/organizations. This topic fails GNG and WP:NCORP.  HighKing++ 17:38, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep As per WP:ORGIND, there are "two types of independence to consider when evaluating sources: Independence of the author… [and] independence of the content…" The author of the Chemist and Druggist reference is clearly independent of the source. For the independence of content, the content is not produced by interested parties. There is original and independent investigation and fact-checking, as demonstrated by the in-depth and journalistic interviews conducted on Mike Keen and Luke Tate, two separate sources, both unrelated to Healthera. The author makes an analysis through balancing facts and opinions from multiple parties using direct quotes from the previously mentioned impartial interview sources, to maintain journalistic integrity and for the publisher to maintain a neutral stance on the issue.
 * HighKing mentions that “References that are based on company announcements (such as funding announcements) may be used to support facts or information within the article,” which is true and something that has already been addressed. HighKing ignores the fact that the articles used to establish notability, such as the Business Weekly reference only mention funding as a part of an overall journalistic report on the company, which are also not from company announcements (i.e. they have obtained sources about the funding of their own accord). These articles also have significant amounts of their own input and analysis involved.
 * According to WP:NEWSBLOG, [blogs] may be acceptable sources if the writers are professionals, but use them with caution because the blog may not be subject to the news organization's normal fact-checking process. If a news organization publishes an opinion piece in a blog, attribute the statement to the writer (e.g. "Jane Smith wrote...")” The writer in question, Diar Fattah, is a professional, and the information is attributed to the writer in the article. It’s worth mentioning that the blog is sourced from NHS Confederation which is curated and authoritative, not a freestyle blog. Feel free to read more about the source here: NHS Confederation
 * Regarding the listing on the NHS apps site, that was never a central argument key to proving the notability of Healthera, but rather a supporting source confirming the verifiability and legitimacy of its app. As mentioned previously by Bondegezou, the NHS apps library does have a strict vetting process. Sliu.3110 (talk) 07:15, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: duplicate !vote struck.  78.26  (spin me / revolutions) 21:50, 3 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Response I agree with that the Chemist and Druggist reference has been written by  independent journalists but that's as far as it goes. I disagree that there is any original and independent investigation or fact checking about the company - which is key for considering sources for the purposes of establishing notability since is the company that is the topic of this article. This article is simply a short report on a disagreement between the NHS's decision to allow clients to use the Healthera app and the CEO of Kent LPC. For that matter, the reference also fails WP:CORPDEPTH.
 * The article in Business Weekly has not been "ignored" by me. These types of articles are commonplace after a company announces funding (yes, that article is based on a company announcement) and WP:NCORP classifies these types of "articles" as "dependent coverage" and they are not sufficient to establish notability. For example, here are several others, all dated around the same date, using similar company descriptions, quotations, even the same photo, etc, as the Business Weekly article. The subsequent company post is a permanent dead link. Does not count towards establishing notability.
 * The Blog on the nhsconfed site is a great example of why blog posts should always be treated with the utmost suspicion and should only be acceptable for the purposes of establishing notability in the rarest of cases (almost never). In this case, the NHS and Diar Fattah has a vested interest in Healthera and neither are a neutral third party. In effect, they are customers/clients of the company with a vested interest in the success of the company. The blog post is nothing more than marketing for the "first ever app-based POD scheme in the UK" launched using the Healthera app. Similarly, the listing on the NHS apps site does nothing to establish the notability of the company - it is simply to promote the POD (Prescription Ordering Direct) service of which the NHS are partners.  HighKing++ 11:48, 1 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Response It is wrong of you to suggest the Chemist and Druggist, a very respected source in British healthcare, does not have systems in place to prevent poor reporting and faulty journalism. Being published on this site is a sign that an article has been thoroughly researched and considered.
 * The original article by Business Weekly appears to be the original, as the other sources you posted are apparently shorter and probably taken from the source material of Business Weekly, Again, there is nothing that clearly shows it as a “press release” type of publication. Also, not sure why you are even mentioning the company blog post, as a self-publication is clearly irrelevant to notability.
 * The NHS is the government-organized health service in the United Kingdom. The NHS is simply not a business, thus it would have no interest in promoting any sort of company for economic motivations. Furthermore, the POD is not working in partnership with the NHS, rather the POD is a service offered by the NHS, for which Healthera is used as a tool of operations. Therefore, the blog was not promoting the product, but rather an innovation in operating healthcare, i.e. the POD system, with Healthera simply being one of the tools they would be deploying.Sliu.3110 (talk) 12:29, 1 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Response Please don't put words in my mouth. I did not say or suggest that Chemist and Druggist does not have systems in place to prevent poor reporting and faulty journalism. I note you didn't respond to my point about the article lacking any original and independent investigation or fact checking about the company. I also note you didn't respond to the point that the article has no in-depth reporting on the company. These are required for references that may be used to establish notability as per the guidelines. Your point about the Business Weekly being the "original" and therefore all the other articles being copied from that source is a real stretch and just sounds desperate. Not only is it tantamount to saying that all of those other publications are not reliable sources because they rip off other publications without crediting the original but the fact is, it appears this article was published at 08:28, a good 44 minutes before the Business Weekly article. Finally, your point about the NHS and the POD system doesn't take away from the fact that it shows they are not neutral third parties but are client/customers/partners in delivering a service which the blog post was promoting. If you can locate any other references that you believe meet the criteria for establishing notability, please post them here and we will provide our comments and perhaps change our mind but until that happens, the references to date fail the criteria and the topic fails GNG and WP:NCORP.  HighKing++ 14:17, 1 July 2019 (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.