Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Portman Dental Care (2nd nomination)

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. ✗plicit 03:52, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Portman Dental Care

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

This article is little more than an advertisement. I've deleted much of the promotional language and citations to the firm's own website. Some of what remains is cited to twitter, just about zero press. Not notable enough for inclusion. Thelisteninghand (talk) 21:07, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Medicine, Europe, and United Kingdom. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:21, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: First AFD was listed under Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Portman Dentalcare (thank you Nate).
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:16, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No real change since the original 2018 nomination; a lot of puffery about a generic dental chain, except now it's been bought by a generic equity company. None of my concerns in nom #1 were addressed in any appreciable manner, and it was much worse before the nom's attempt at cleanup. And that the article boasts of them recieivng awards with nothing to do with actual patient care is questionable (why is there something called the "COVID Response Awards"?!! They won in the category "BEST COVID-19 RESPONSE IN HEALTHCARE (OVER 15M TURNOVER)" which...yeah, I'm holding back a rant here). Nate • (chatter) 01:22, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

As the nominator I'll just add that of the eight citations remaining, two are to twitter, one to the BDCA is a generic page with no mention of Portman, the remaining are to industry publications apart from one to Sky News. There are more than 12,000 dental practices in the UK, we surely don't have individual articles for all of them. That's not encyclopedic imo. Thelisteninghand (talk) 19:34, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Not a notable organisation. Keep arguments in the last AFD were weak at best, and there is still no evidence ORGCRITE is met. Given that the argument of "premature" deletion in 2018 has four years later proven false with no increase in proof of notability, I support deletion. MaxnaCarta (talk) 03:37, 21 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.