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. Star Mississippi 02:31, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Health Data Insight[edit]

Health Data Insight (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)

Lack of reliable independent media coverage WP:NCORP and WP:CORPDEPTH Bash7oven (talk) 12:06, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

An accusation of lack of sources often means that the individual has not been perhaps looking in the right place. It's not a cast-iron accusation.

The organisation performs an important function for the NHS. I think you need to look more at that. GCHQ I would guess has 'few reliable sources' too, wouldn't you? DinosaursLoveExistence (talk) 12:28, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 13:46, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 13:46, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 13:46, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. I searched extensively, in Google Books, Wikipedia Library, ProQuest and I did find passing mentions of their studies and them in academic conflict of interest statements, but I found no significant coverage. I have sympathy for the comment from DinosaursLoveExistence about looking in the right places, but I'm not sure where else to look. I'll pivot to a keep in a heartbeat if anyone can show sources that prove notability. CT55555 (talk) 14:03, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Its a significant contributor to the NHS. But sadly its name makes it very hard to track.Rathfelder (talk) 18:31, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  I would find this more convincing if you had any evidence of notability. CT55555 (talk) 13:34, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:34, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment not sure about significance of NHS contributions. if yes and if proven, then should be kept. --2600:2B00:7E53:4300:70DC:432D:1078:93AC (talk) 07:10, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  The test is notability, not significance to the NHS. CT55555 (talk) 13:35, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:28, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• The Pharmaforum article is quite detailed and objective. There is also some interesting coverage here[1] The dataset of England's primary care prescription data is significant in itself. Rathfelder (talk) 22:56, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Significant constituent parts of the NHS are notable. The NHS is an exceedingly complex organisation and removing coverage of significant parts of it damages our coverage. Bigwig7 (talk) 23:08, 14 July 2022 (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.