Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Medtral


 * 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   No consensus. A borderline case, but with at least two distinct media references, I see no evidence that the company is inherently non-notable. However, there does not appear to be consensus in this case.  Running On Brains (talk page) 17:12, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Medtral

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Non-notable company. The only reference is an article in the Washington Post - that's a good reference, but not sufficient to meet WP:CORP. Previously tagged as being written like an advert, but tag removed with little improvement to the article. gadfium 22:28, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. - gadfium  22:28, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete I agree, not speedy material but defiantely fails WP:CORP. - 2 ... says you, says me, suggestion box 22:59, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep added sources asserting notability. - 2 ... says you, says me, suggestion box 05:26, 18 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. - gadfium  23:11, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete or userfy. Except for the WaPo article mentioned, all the sources seem to be press release reprints so independent sources just aren't available to establish notability.  I'd let this run a week in case someone can point them out, I couldn't find them.  Also offer to userfy or explain it can be undeleted when sources are available because medical tourism is still growing very rapidly.  Drawn Some (talk) 23:18, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Are working on finding sources, but as mentioned above it is difficult because medical tourism is still in it infancy and new zealand is an emerging market. Have tried to improve tone of article so as not to read like an advertisement. User talk:Seejaynz 12:24, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep, satisfies WP:N/WP:CORP. Articles in the NZ Herald, The Press, as well as the Washington Post. All from July 2008, but there are unique details in each (e.g. Roger Styles, Arnold Milstein), and Eleanor Black Watkin may have resold the story. XLerate (talk) 04:04, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. I'm not sure if I'm seeing a later version of the article than the rest of you, but it looks perfectly notable to me, and I am usually in the "delete" camp. Hairhorn (talk) 04:42, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete Does not meet WP:N or WP:CORP. Only two of the cited ref's actually talk about the subject, and not in an in-depth sort of way.  This is  not enough to pass the bar.   Dloh  cierekim  19:23, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
 * More references added. Don't want to add too many as many of the referring sites are covering off similar topics (price, new zealand, medical tourism options) User talk:Seejaynz 12:42, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, but I don't see where the added external links refer to the subject. Cheers,  Dloh  cierekim  00:50, 20 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep - the NZ Herald, and Press articles noted above, and the National Business Review and Washington Post articles referenced in the article above represent multiple independent sources all covering the subject. This meets notability. -- Whpq (talk) 13:10, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
 * All these articles appear to come from the same source. They demonstrate one independent source, not many.- gadfium 19:53, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
 * That's not how I read them. They are published in different periodicals and the content is not substantially the same for each.  -- Whpq (talk) 20:52, 20 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete - just 2 articles isn't enough - there seems nothing really notable about this co. NBeale (talk) 21:30, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment - It isn't just 2 articles, it's three. -- Whpq (talk) 21:35, 20 May 2009 (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.