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. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 20:34, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

PetalMD[edit]

PetalMD (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article was recreated today after being speedy deleted per promo. I re-speedied, and the tag was removed with the edit note that included: "The two sources are sufficient to meet WP:GNG " and warning the creator to tone down the PROMO in the future. The two acceptable sources are this Le Soleil piece and this Montreal Gazette piece. Yep, we have two independent sources with significant discussion. There are two lightly-dressed press releases also cited now here and here about acquisitions. This company is marginally notable at this time; not at all a slam dunk for meeting GNG. In light of the promotional pressure, delete and also salt. Jytdog (talk) 20:10, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Jytdog (talk) 20:19, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Jytdog (talk) 20:19, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
There are the same four sources that I described above; you have not added anything since the nomination. Correct? For articles that are marginally notable and it could go either way, when there is promotional pressure, there is a growing trend to delete them. It is not worth the community's time to keep marginally notable articles neutral when there are people who keep trying to add promotional content to them. Jytdog (talk) 21:48, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I've given you two more sources that provide non-trivial coverage of the company. Correct? As for the promotional pressure, that's what watchlists are for (mine anyways): I've reduced the article to a neutral stub and I'll be happy to do it again if need be. Pichpich (talk) 00:05, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
For pete's sake would you actually read the nomination? I mention four sources there. Jytdog (talk) 02:05, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I have read your nomination. You mention the four sources that are currently form part of the article. In my keep !vote just above, I mention two more sources that are not currently used in the article but are nevertheless indications of notability. Just so we're clear, I'm talking about this one and this other one. Pichpich (talk) 02:25, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
OH so the "two sources" you keep talking about are sources that you yourself decided were worthless or not reliable. OK then. I didn't realize you are actually asking the community to consider sources you already rejected. Very strange. So we still have two good independent sources with significant discussion. Jytdog (talk) 02:55, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America1000 22:03, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. North America1000 22:03, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • The mission of the company is to allow doctors to spend as much time as possible with their patients by supporting them in the administrative aspects of their practice. Obligations that are eating 25% of the time doctors.
Its web platform, called Petal MD, includes support heavy schedules of doctors. It also serves as central library by which doctors can exchange texts and scientific articles on innovative treatments or new treatment protocols.
The current sources provide no claim of notability; thus making it an unnecessary article on a unremarkable company. The only other purpose for the article to exist would be for promotional purposes.
PS -- the creator of this article Special:Contributions/Cbonamy has already been blocked as spam / advertising only account, so this confirms it. Rather than wasting volunteer editors' time dealing with COI editors who are likely to return and trying to maintain neutrality of this article (notwithstanding editor Pichpich's admirable efforts to salvage this article), I advocate deletion. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:03, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Another source Ici Radio-Canada. Only short news. Pavlor (talk) 14:08, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I would not rely on the coverage of any general newspaper for what physicians use or do not use. I would rely only on audited figures which are unambiguous between the possibilities that they a/signed up and perhaps had a trial for but actually purchased /leased it; b/bought/leased it, but have since discontinued it. c/use only one small part of it. Nice round numbers like 75,000 are very unlikely to be correct. Claiming the most inflated of all possible nuumbers is PR-talk, just as when Wikipedia reports the number of "editors" or uses a very low definition of "active editors" DGG ( talk ) 16:11, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
K.e.coffman wrote "The current sources provide no claim of notability". I pointed to the opposite. The few reliable sources we have base notability of PetalMD on numbers you dispute. Fair enough, I also think these numbers say nothing about actual use. However reliable sources have greater weight than my opinion (even though they are misleading). As I see it, there are only three independent reliable sources: two local newspapers (with several articles about the company in one of them and only single article in the another) and brief news article on the page of public broadcaster. Is this enough to estabilish notability? For me yes, others may have other opinion. Pavlor (talk) 16:42, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It is the same with the other articles presented. None of these are reliable sources, per COREDEPTH. All views, other than the promotional testimonials, are derived from company people, as if there were no one else to interview. These are the same as routine announcements. This is not journalism, and this is not what is intended as a measure of WP:N, GNG, and COREDEPTH; hence it fails those. I also echo DGG - an unbiased auditing of numbers and comments obtained from a signifigant sample of subscribers and former subscribers would be much more acceptable. That is more likely to represent journalistic integrity. Simply saying 75,000 current subscribers really tells consumers nothing and is also a nice rounded suspect number. Steve Quinn (talk) 03:38, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
75,000 current subscribers? My French may be bad, but this number is estimate of physicians in the entire country (Quebec or Canada?), not number of subscribers (which is mentioned in 20000-30000 range in the sources, 30,347 on the petalmd webpage). I wonder, did you really read these sources? Pavlor (talk) 09:12, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, I see, you read the only English source available (which mentions 10,000 subscribers in August 2014...) and discarded the French ones. These mention 16,000 subscribers in January 2015 and 25,000 in Jaunuary 2016. Pavlor (talk) 09:27, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Lourdes 04:12, 6 September 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.
More