Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Medebra


 * 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.  MBisanz  talk 14:08, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

Medebra

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Sources are mostly sites where you can buy their products, nothing significant (plus a few deadlinks). Doesn't pass WP:COMPANY and likely promotional. ~Styyx Talk? ^-^ 13:50, 2 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions.  ~Styyx Talk? ^-^ 13:50, 2 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions.  ~Styyx Talk? ^-^ 13:50, 2 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions.  ~Styyx Talk? ^-^ 13:50, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗  plicit  14:38, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

I attempted to fix the article and removed a deadlink source and added categories but I agree if the company isn't notable it should be deleted and one secondary source (Cancer Be Glammed) that was cited has absolutely no mention of Medebra on their website. I found this article in the uncategorized articles list but so much of it is hard to understand advertising lingo that I don't understand enough about surgeries to know if is legitimately how the product is used/discussed that I think it should be deleted. This is my first time ever contributing to a deletion discussion though so let me know if I'm wrong in any way. Feralcateater000 (talk)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Any thoughts on FeralCatEater000's recent cleanup?

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 🌀 Locomotive207 - talk  🌀  01:05, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete No issues with the cleanup but that's not the biggest problem. The criteria for establishing notability for companies/organizations as per WP:NCORP is for multiple sources (at least two) of deep or 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 WP:NCORP.  HighKing++ 21:01, 24 October 2021 (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.