Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Institute for Interactive Patient Care


 * 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. Tim Song (talk) 02:05, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Institute for Interactive Patient Care

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

No indication of notability. The first two references are quotes from the executive director - not coverage of the organisation. The third reference comes up as an empty page and the 4th is to the organisations own webpage. Disputed prod. noq (talk) 16:50, 26 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep - First, the third article pulls up for me, so I'm unsure why you said it goes to an empty page. I also disagree that this article should be deleted. The concept of interactive patient care is relatively new, and obviously this institute would have limited coverage. I selected the articles to backup the statements made, and to show that this non-profit organization is being used by journalists as a source for information on the subject. I may be incorrect, but this constitutes 'newsworthy.' In response to this challenge, I am also monitoring the organization via Google News and other means in order to add content as this field develops. This article is written in a neutral tone, and was not created for promotional means. I find this subject interesting, and am in the process of writing a larger article on the subject of interactive patient care. I also created this as a stub and not as a complete article, due to the fact that the information is limited. lokipro (lokipro) 14:35, 26 March 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lokipro (talk) • (contribs)
 * It doesn't matter whether you (or I) think that it is "newsworthy". It matters whether you can produce a 100% "independent" reliable source that is not just the local newspaper (because local newspapers tend to run a little bit of everything that happens in their backyards) or a re-hashed press release (which isn't independent, even if the publisher pretends that it's their own work, rather than labeling it "press release").  The standard rules are here, if you want to learn more about this.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:12, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:57, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:58, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This article has been nominated for rescue. Silver  seren C 09:33, 27 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment I have tagged this article for rescue. Silver  seren C 09:33, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep I have added new sources into the article. There is enough coverage in reliable, secondary sources in order to establish notability. Silver  seren C 09:33, 27 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete - no sources to establish notability. The dump of external links added to the article consists of quoting the executive director, or are press releases or press release re-hashes.  I don't see that any of the original references, nor the addition of external links constitutes significant coverage, and more importantly, consists of reliable sources. -- Whpq (talk) 17:00, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
 * "Institute for Interactive Patient Care launched in US" - BJHC
 * These two sources, which are in the article, are neither press releases, nor quotes of the director. The only similar wording between them is the two principal functions, which could be from a press release, i'm not sure, but that doesn't invalidate the rest of the sources. Silver  seren C 19:58, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
 * http://www.redorbit.com/news/health/1692320/institute_for_interactive_patient_care_launched/index.html is from PRNewswire. PRNewswire carries nothing but press releases: that's its function.&mdash;Kww(talk) 20:54, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
 * http://www.redorbit.com/news/health/1692320/institute_for_interactive_patient_care_launched/index.html is from PRNewswire. PRNewswire carries nothing but press releases: that's its function.&mdash;Kww(talk) 20:54, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget  00:18, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete Not the topic of any sources that establish notability. Novangelis (talk) 01:33, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.


 * Delete agree with Whpq's statement. also no substantial coverage. . LibStar (talk) 13:41, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep Nonprofit organizations aren't going to get a lot of press coverage, obviously. This organization seems notable based on its approach to health care, that making it unique/notable.   D r e a m Focus  14:58, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment - "Seems notable" isn't one of the criteria for establishing notability. Notability requires verifiable evidence. -- Whpq (talk) 15:27, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
 * WP:ITSNOTABLE is not a valid reason. We don't relax notability rules for non profit orgs. LibStar (talk) 04:16, 7 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete Being non-profit doesn't prevent coverage, as I'm sure the American Cancer Society, Goodwill, and the Roman Catholic Church will attest. Insufficient coverage in independent sources.&mdash;Kww(talk) 15:03, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete. I agree that the available coverage is insufficient. — Rankiri (talk) 21:02, 9 April 2010 (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.