Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/NowMedical


 * 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. There is no clear consensus one way or the other regarding the notability of this company, and therefore no consensus to delete the article. However, just because the article won't be deleted doesn't mean that there aren't paths available to challenge and remove content from the article that cannot be backed up by reliable sources. ‑Scottywong | [talk] || 00:38, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

NowMedical

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

A possible un-notable company with only local sources and blog articles as support of WP:GNG, with factual accuracy which is disputed. (I myself does not have an opinion, only relaying from OTRS 2020021010006728.) Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 21:16, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 21:16, 10 February 2020 (UTC)


 * There is no explanation of what factual accuracy is disputed. There are seven independent references and there are more out there.  Rathfelder (talk) 21:19, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep I can't see the OTRS ticket, so I'm not sure what the complaint is about, but if I were Dr. Keen, or in any way affiliated with NowMedical, I'd like to have it removed. It's not exactly flattering. The sources aren't great, but I don't think they're libelous or defamatory, which would be a reason to (immediately) delete it. Looking at the sources; bracknellnews.co.uk has A "Send us your news" feature,  https://www.bracknellnews.co.uk/send-us-your-news/ BUT claims to adhere to the Independent Press Standards Organisation's Editors' Code of Practice. Their article was written by Ollie Sirrell, who works for newsquest.co.uk, which says about itself "We employ experienced marketing consultants throughout the UK that help local businesses promote their products and services to local audiences." If the subject was another cryptocurrency company, I'd be pretty quick to dismiss that as an unreliable source. OpenDemocracy's article was written by Clare Sambrook, a novelist & investigative journalist. The article for thebureauinvestigaes was written by Maeve McClenaghan, who appears to be a reliable investigative journalist. The Islington Gazette looks like an independent, relibale source to me. The author, Lucas Cumiskey has an email address at archant.co.uk, which is dodgy; "we help businesses enter and succeed in their chosen markets through marketing services". Again, if this was an article about some startup, I would not trust that source. nicholasnicol.uk is clearly a blog. So is nearlylegal.co.uk. The Hackney Citizen's article was written by  Ed Sheridan who is bylinead as the Local Democracy Reporter for the Islington citizen and the Camden citizen as well. I'm not super-impressed by the sources, but I see no reason to dismiss them as factually inaccurate. The article in the independent is clearly significant coverage in an independent, reliable source. Vexations (talk) 02:46, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
 * The sources are not wonderful, but there is no obvious conflict of interest, and the real source of most of them is The Bureau of Investigative Journalism which is reasonably respectable, but the local papers are following up the implications of their story. But I've now found a much fuller report in the Independent.  Rathfelder (talk) 15:11, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 21:12, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 21:12, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein   09:35, 18 February 2020 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: I too have reviewed the OTRS ticket, and see decent cause to relist at this time. I would like to see extra involvement from people not directly involved in writing the article, and also think this will allow time for a response permitting some details from the ticket to be shared here. I do suggest future participants of this discussion comment on the notability of this company, and whether the current angle of the article is adhering enough to WP:DUE (especially with consideration that living people are discussed in the article).
 * Comment/Request As I can see the OTRS ticket I'm going to ask that this be relisted. The letter to OTRS provides specific claims as to why available sources do not establish notability which are loosely of the kind of analysis which is typical at an AfD discussion. This analysis cannot be posted here without permission so I am going to ask for that permission. If granted it would allow a chance for uninvolved editors to discuss whether they do or don't meet our qualifications. If not granted then consensus above hasn't really changed. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 17:16, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee //  have a ☕️ //  beans  // 20:53, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
 * The following was sent in by the lawyers representing NowMedical. It arrived on February 28th but was only routed to me a short time ago.

I post this without comment or opinion merely for consideration by other editors as part of this discussion. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 02:20, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
 * This does not show that the company is not notable, rather the reverse. These issues should be addressed in the article. Rathfelder (talk) 14:45, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete On the contrary, the OTRS ticket does not substantiate that there is any notable controversy. It does substantiate that there is a possible serious BLP issue and which should not be ignored.  The only source that substantiates that this issue has created significant coverage in RS is the Independent, which fails to substantiate that there is any wrongdoing involved.  Other sources are local smalltime press and a lobbying group. The article as written paints the BLP subject's actions in a negative light and that requires better coverage than currently exists. If the controversy later generates further significant coverage in RS than it can be re-created but BLP requires removal of most of the information.  The amount of BLP-compliant information remaining is not worth having an article for and does not comply with GNG. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 20:47, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
 * This article is about a company, not a person. The question is not how good the article is. The question is whether the company has coverage.  Coverage in local press is relevant because the coverage is of contracts the company has with individual local councils.  Rathfelder (talk) 00:02, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
 * WP:BLP ...applies to all material about living persons anywhere on Wikipedia including articles about organizations. "The article is about a company" is not a loophole for BLP-violating information or attack pages.  Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 00:22, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
 * BLP applies everywhere. However, because this is about a company and not a person, can there be a policy compliant version of this company? If so its notability - or not - should stand on its own. If the company can only be covered in ways which would violate our BLP policy then that should impact whether or not we have an article at all. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 00:40, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
 * , I have difficulty believing that a compliant version is possible. The only source of notability is the accusations sourced almost entirely to non-RS.  The company is very closely related to the doctor and, even assuming all the coverage is correct, seems to be mostly a practice name rather than an organization with a significant staff. This makes separating the company's actions from the person's actions fuzzy at best.  Thanks for posting the OTRS complaint for examination. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 03:28, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
 * There are two mentions of Dr Keen. First that he started the company and second that he sent a report without seeing a patient.  Neither appear to be disputed.  This is not  “a very small”, “local” company.  It provides services to a very large number of local authorities.  The contracts with those councils are discussed in their local papers, as you would expect.   Some of the critical coverage is based on court judgements. Also discussed in local papers.  One council defends the company and that is included in the article.  The lawyers do not appear to be disputing any of the contents, merely saying that the criticism is unfair.  It may be, but that doesnt make it libellous. Rathfelder (talk) 07:56, 6 March 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep. The Independent, at least, is a reliable source providing substantial coverage. That NowMedical disagrees with its reporting does not make it less reliable. Also, contra Eggishorn, whether the allegation made in The Independent or elsewhere have merit or not has nothing to do with whether the paper is reliable or the company is notable. Coverage for false allegations is still coverage. Together with the other sources, I think the notability bar is passed here.  Sandstein   09:57, 6 March 2020 (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.