Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/MedAccess

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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:22, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

MedAccess (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No reliable sources provided except for routine coverage, own website, primary sources etc. Promotinal tone and original research Mozzcircuit (talk) 08:30, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and United Kingdom. Shellwood (talk) 11:12, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previous WP:PROD candidate, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:02, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose/keep: Article has now been edited to address promotional tone and provide more reliable sources. Please review and consider withdrawing the proposed deletion. Impact7102 (talk) 10:45, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Can you point to any sources that meet GNG/NCORP criteria for establishing notability?

• Delete This is a company therefore GNG/WP:NCORP requires at least two deep or significant sources with each source containing "Independent Content" showing in-depth information *on the company*. "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. I'm unable to identify any references that meet the criteria for establishing notability. HighKing⁺⁺ 20:58, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Comment Please consider the following sources as meeting GNG/NCORP criteria: independent and showing information on the company.

  1: Jack, Andrew (2019-11-29). "Innovative finance schemes increase access to medicine". Financial Times. Retrieved 2023-09-04.

  2: "An overview of market shaping in global health: Landscape, new developments, and gaps". Rethink Priorities. Retrieved 2023-09-08. Impact7102 (talk) 13:18, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Response The FT article relies entirely on information provided by the company or execs which is clear from the context/content of the article. I cannot find any indication of content that is in-depth about the company and is *clearly* attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. Similarly, the second source contains a list of references which appear to attribute the information to company sources, which would also ORGIND. HighKing⁺⁺ 12:45, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:39, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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.