Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/CapeRay Medical

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. Ad Orientem (talk) 14:31, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

CapeRay Medical[edit]

[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)

Duplicate of the article CapeRay Rathfelder (talk) 21:53, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:26, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:26, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:26, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Better merge and add anew heading in CapeRay article. Mia Watson (talk) 17:01, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
What new heading? I cant see anything which is not already included. Rathfelder (talk) 18:12, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
NOTE I am also including the twin page, CapeRay, in this nomination.

That page was created on the same day by the same person as a duplicate of this page. They are both obvious promotion and SEO work and need to be cleaned out of WP. Pinging User:Rathfelder and User:Mia Watson the only people who have !voted so far Jytdog (talk) 20:25, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

delete both (in case that is not clear) Jytdog (talk) 20:25, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both There is no indication of notability--just press releases, including some from the sponsoring university. DGG ( talk ) 13:17, 24 June 2018 (UTC) .[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 03:16, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I redid the article somewhat, added some sources, and redirected the CapeRay Medical page to just CapeRay. Judging by the amount of stuff I found, it seems to be pretty well known in South Africa. Where are the refs? (talk) 02:19, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both: Does not meet new and improved WP:NCORP; promo 'cruft based on WP:SPIP sourcing. Just a private company going about its business. K.e.coffman (talk) 22:53, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

SPIP sourcing, are you kidding me? I added sources to locally reputable independent coverage (see the sources from Enterprise Africa, Africa Outlook, and IT Web), and it seems awfully eurocentric to reject them as mere self-promotion. The company is well known in South Africa, there is plenty of information about it, and it is a pioneer in breast cancer diagnostics. That is enough to pass NCORP and the article (CapeRay) should stand as well. Where are the refs? (talk) 05:23, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Reliable sources independent of the organization have discussed it. It's sufficiently notable for an article, and I never suggested it wasnt.Rathfelder (talk) 20:25, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I completely agree, so shouldn't the redirect already suffice?Where are the refs? (talk) 01:33, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 15:53, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete both. Small company. Sources in article are mainly PR driven or not independent of the company. BEFORE doesn't show much else.Icewhiz (talk) 10:38, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both as per above. None of the references meet the criteria for establishing notability and are all based on company announcements and other promo PR. Topic fails GNG and WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 13:03, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both CapeRay Medical and CapeRay.
Both articles were simultaneously created with near identical content by same single-purpose user (see Special:Contributions/Andrewb1000). And today, +7 years after creations, there is still no real meat, - in fact: The company's own story telling (http://www.caperay.com/index.php/our-history) is showing comparable encyclopedic value.
I think this is a case of someone having created an article (identical twins) with sufficiently bland verbiage to not violate NPOV, and Wikipedians never having bothered to check notability. - Notability or not, if an article has failed the test of time, not providing encyclopedic value to the world, then: Delete it from Wikipedia (a potentially stale rephrased write-up of a primary source, does not serve any reader's interest). -- DexterPointy (talk) 22:05, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete only PR or not independent references found Heshiv (talk) 10:27, 9 July 2018 (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.