Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Portman Dentalcare


 * 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. Randykitty (talk) 11:10, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

Portman Dentalcare

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Notability is not inherited, most sources about it are really about Sam Waley-Cohen but with mentions of the company. It has made some acquisitions, but the coverage is not significant enough to pass WP:GNG Joseph2302 (talk) 13:34, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Joseph2302 (talk) 13:37, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Joseph2302 (talk) 13:37, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. <b style="color:#CCCC00">Joseph</b><b style="color:#00FF00">2302</b> (talk) 13:37, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
 * <small class="delsort-notice">Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. <b style="color:#CCCC00">Joseph</b><b style="color:#00FF00">2302</b> (talk) 13:37, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

There are six independent national sources. It's now clearly one of the largest dental business in the UK and growing rapidly.Rathfelder (talk) 13:53, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete - Does not pass notability guidelines for companies. Skirts89 (talk) 17:29, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
 * It has significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Rathfelder (talk) 21:13, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment - Coverage in citations is referential, not primary, at best. Refers only to Sam Waley-Cohen at worst. This feels like it fails both WP:PROMOTION and WP:CORP. Skirts89 (talk) 19:33, 28 December 2018 (UTC)


 * The dental trade press is not interested in Mr Waley-Cohen. They are interested in the company's acquisitions. Rathfelder (talk) 19:58, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Some source analysis:


 * 1)  - decent source about the company
 * 2)  - hard to tell as in foreign language, but looks reliable
 * 3)  - about Waley-Cohan, passing mention
 * 4)  - about Waley-Cohan, passing mention
 * 5)  - basically the same info as the first source
 * 6)  - not sure dentistry.co.uk is a RS
 * 7)  - article about gender pay, has a 3 line passing mention
 * 8)  - local coverage
 * 9)  - looks like a rehashed press release, Reuters do a lot of reposting press releases. So not independent in my opinion
 * 10)  - not sure dentistry.co.uk is a RS
 * So in summary, there's a couple of decent sources but rest are local coverage or only passing mentions. This is why I believe it fails WP:GNG. <b style="color:#CCCC00">Joseph</b><b style="color:#00FF00">2302</b> (talk) 22:55, 28 December 2018 (UTC)


 * dentistry.co.uk is the trade paper for the dental business.  It's as good a source as you will get for dental businesses. The very short Reuters article doesnt appear to be a press release. And I dont think it's proper to ignore local coverage by regional papers, in both Oxford and Oldham, of an organisation like this.  Nor do I see why you want to discount the Times article about the gender gap. It certainly isnt promotional. Rathfelder (talk) 10:01, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment - Not only is the Times article behind a paywall (WP:PAYWALL), but it seems like the article only refers in passing to the founder of the company. This does not indicate notability. This article does not pass WP:GNG. Skirts89 (talk) 16:07, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

<div class="xfd_relist" style="border-top: 1px solid #AAA; border-bottom: 1px solid #AAA; padding: 0px 25px;"> Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * the (WP:PAYWALL) guidance says: "Do not reject reliable sources just because they are difficult or costly to access." But actually there is a bit in the Times article which is above the paywall for all to see, and it mentions the company as well as him.  On your analysis there are 3 significant reliable independent sources. Rathfelder (talk) 20:53, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep - difficult to see what the problem about notability might be with a chain of 80 dental practices worth over £300 million. Oculi (talk) 20:17, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep - this is a UK company that is growing, with many already established dental and orthodontic practices joining the company in the last few years, and clearly notable within the UK dentistry profession. It is often the case with successful companies like Portman that they only generate media coverage in the trade press, in this case dentistry.co.uk, and in the financial news - regarding acquisitions. Significant secondary sources are going to be sparse in the absence of controversy or questionable practices. Deleting this article would be, in my mind, rather premature. Poltair (talk) 19:19, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Articles for deletion/Log/2019 January 4.  —<sup style="color:green;font-family:Courier">cyberbot I  <sub style="margin-left:-13.5ex;color:green;font-family:Comic Sans MS"> Talk to my owner :Online 00:04, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein   11:31, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete Severely lacking article; we know dental chains usually do financing for procedures, and otherwise the article was 'the guy founded it and cashed out, and acquired a bunch of small practices along the way'...then just a bunch of scattered information about openings, their acquisitions here and there, and random organizations they offer discounts to. If any article ever needed a complete fixing-up, it's this one. It's a painful and random read that does nothing to inform us why this company is notable outside 'they acquired a bunch of companies, won some awards, and hey, jockeys can get their maws fixed up at a discount'.  Nate  • ( chatter ) 00:16, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Notability is judged by independent coverage. Its not necessary to establish some unique properties. It's notable and gets coverage because it's one of three companies transforming the dental industry in the UK. Rathfelder (talk) 12:14, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment Please source the claim then. 'Transforming the dental industry in the UK' is at best hyperbole. At worst, it's complete marketing hot air. We're not here to promote businesses.  Nate  • ( chatter ) 00:23, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment As mentioned previously, many of us don't really think the coverage is that notable. I only see one source I consider notable. You have created hundreds of articles about random health clinics, and this article is no different. Skirts89 (talk) 16:25, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Please refrain from personal attacks. The whole point of the article is about the change to the dentistry business in the UK.  This company has grown from 8 practices in 2011 - which in itself was pretty revolutionary for a business based on corner shops - to at least 80 today, and something similar has happened to the 2 named competitors.  I dont see how we can cover the dental industry in the UK without including this. And I cant see how this article can be described as marketting.  Dentistry UK is the main trade source, and it's as authoritative a source as I can find for dentistry. There will never be much detailed coverage of dentistry in mainstream media, but this has had coverage from Sky News, the Indy and the Sunday Times. No doubt the jockey made the story more attractive, but that does not mean we should discount it.  Rathfelder (talk) 20:16, 8 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep There is enough significant coverage in independent, reliable sources for this company to meet WP:ORGCRITE.


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. <b style="color:red">Please do not modify it.</b> 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.