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. -- Ed (Edgar181) 15:06, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ClinicJot[edit]

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

Delete-Nothing notable about the article to be featured in encyclopedia!! Aru@baska^{❯❯❯ Vanguard} 16:31, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. —MRD2014 (talk · contribs) 17:01, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. —MRD2014 (talk · contribs) 17:01, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I'm finding very little in RSes about this. I was surprised to find actual reports on the SME award [1][2], but I don't think that's enough RS coverage to swing a keep - David Gerard (talk) 17:11, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've been nominated for a major award in the UK on Thursday. Its a pretty big deal. I have given 5 years of my life to develop this software and everyone has to start off somewhere. Its an amazing piece of kit and with mHealth set to be a $53bil industry over the next 5-10 years, its an extremely valid submission as its the only native therapeutic EMR on the market. Mikeijay (talk) 17:50, 4 October 2016 (UTC) mikeijay[reply]

@Mikeijay: Sir, with all regards you are probably unaware of the rules and policies to discuss a proposed deletion of any article.I would suggest you take a look at Contributing to AfD discussions.Thank You.Aru@baska^{❯❯❯ Vanguard} 17:58, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Deer Moderators - Please can you elaborate how two highly regarded UK publications including a link to the SME Magazine's website, as well as the BBBA Award link does not provide suitable evidence? - Many Thanks Mikeijay (talk) 18:07, 4 October 2016 (UTC) Mikeijay[reply]

Delete - To answer the user's questions above, this is because it varies with the actual contents, for example, republished PR information is not convincing even if it were mentioned at a major news source, because it's still the actual contents that matter. This is essentially still advertising and none of it suggests otherwise, nothing suggesting the substance we would need. SwisterTwister talk 01:51, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:23, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:WEBHOST; Wikipedia should not be a replica of company's web site. Sections include "Management Team"; "Products"; "Awards"; etc which is typical of corporate spam. Delete with fire. K.e.coffman (talk) 23:39, 8 October 2016 (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.