Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Boston Medical Group

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 keep. While consensus wasn't overly obvious, the direction of the discussion was that the article had improved just enough to justify its existence. — Scientizzle 19:34, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Boston Medical Group

This article is/was an attempt at advertising with unverified claims since at least July, 2008. The previous citations only parroted information on the Boston Medical Groups website. AlbertHall (talk) 18:06, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Unverified and advertising-style claims should be scrubbed, but the entry is worth keeping and improving. Boston Medical Group, as a company, generates significant interest on the web (Google KW tool estimates 9900 monthly searches for the term "Boston Medical Group".) A neutral Wikipedia page about the company would be useful for anyone combing the thicket of (often unreliable) web information about erectile dysfunction treatment - which Boston Medical Group offers at its various clinic locations.--Williamfernandez (talk) 18:09, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a total lack of substance once the advertising has been removed. Let google take care of google search numbers. The information that could be given in a sourced Wikipedia article would be only directory information DGG (talk) 01:49, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete there is no room for unsubstantiated advertising claims on Wikipedia. No proof of efficacy, no patent information. Google and yellow pages can handle the scant information available. When peer-reviewed information becomes available about BMG's approach, it could be mentioned under erectile dysfunction. AlbertHall (talk) 12:32, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete really counts as WP:SPAM. no establishment of why this organisation is more notable than your average medical clinic. Michellecrisp (talk) 23:00, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. -- raven1977 (talk) 20:58, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- raven1977 (talk) 20:58, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Please see the revisions I have made to this article including 7 reliable source citations. This company's radio advertisements are ubiquitous fixtures on male-oriented shows like Howard Stern and Tom Leykis, so I'm surprised there is not more independent coverage. However, I did manage to dig up a few sources, including a New York magazine article[1] which features the author's visit to the clinic in the last half of the article; a newspaper article about its "racy" billboard ads[2]; and a few rather minor mentions including one citing its ironic slogan "Premature ejaculation? Immediate results."[3] There were also a couple of negative pieces including a doctor who was sanctioned[4] and a court case involving an erection lasting for over TWO DAYS![5]. DHowell (talk) 02:40, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've looked at the revisions, and I removed the final one, about a Texas case, which is certainly not acceptable. It's a primary source, for a court decision only to the effect that the group does business in Texas, and does not support the allegations of harm from their treatment. Whether the NY Post article , again about a specific physician in the group, is relevant, would need to be discussed if the article is kept. Just as the article cannot be an ad, it should not be a discussion about the side effects of one particular FDA-approved medical method that is not at all limited to this chain of clinics. DGG (talk) 03:45, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep if it is made clear that the notability is primarily about the advertising campaign. I think the sources are just sufficient to show that. DGG (talk) 03:48, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep as improved and (moderately) sourced. Hobit (talk) 15:45, 24 October 2008 (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.