Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Centre for Sight

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. Euryalus (talk) 11:30, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Centre for Sight

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

Simply paid for unnotable spam. Some of the refs do not even mention the company such as http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2012/02/07/katie-piper-acid-attack-eye-sight-stem-cell_n_1259354.html Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:25, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This one mentioned the doc but not the center[1].

They have also it appears bought an article about themselves Sheraz Daya. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:26, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 11:25, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 11:25, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:56, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - the Telegraph 2005 article has a fairly long description of a procedure which appears to have been new at that time, with some of the description provided by Mr Daya and the unit is mentioned by name. Otherwise, the only coverage is through their involvement in treating a celebrity. Notability has not been established when judged against WP:NORG. Drchriswilliams (talk) 18:04, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Sheraz Daya if no additional citations are added. The Telegraph footnote IS a good and valid one, but as the nom mentions, the additional footnotes do not refer to the Center for Sight, only to Daya himself. So they absolutely satisfy Wikipedia's notability requirements for HIM, but not for this article. That said, the Telegraph piece is strong enough that it implies the Center for Sight article may well be sourceable but is simply lacking the necessary links. If someone adds one more secondary source with significant coverage of this topic, great. If not, merge it to the article that clearly is notable by Wikipedia's guidelines. -Markeer 15:19, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
'delete advertising brochure of a non-notable clinic. Jytdog (talk) 04:46, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ♠PMC♠ (talk) 20:26, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as fails WP:CORPDEPTH. No objections if relevant content is merged to Sheraz Daya -- HighKing⁺⁺ 12:50, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
delete as sources lack depth and aren't altogether about the subject. Dloh cierekim 09:57, 2 May 2017 (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.