Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Home Instead Senior Care

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. Sandstein 08:59, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Home Instead Senior Care[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)

I was going to PROD this, but discovered that it had been prodded once in 2009. It's very poorly sourced, and I haven't been able to locate a single independent secondary source in my own search. There are four footnotes in all; the second section offers no citations at all. In the first section, the sentence about the firm being "cited for its business success" names six publications but only gives (weak) citations for two of them, each with a single-sentence mention of the company. Note 3 is 404 not found, and note 4, which is offered as pertaining to Franchise Business Review, is actually a promotional text provided by the article subject, on a site suggestively named PR Newswire. Unless somebody can find some real sources, the company is surely not notable. Bishonen | talk 21:21, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. ___CAPTAIN MEDUSAtalk 21:27, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. ___CAPTAIN MEDUSAtalk 21:27, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nebraska-related deletion discussions. ___CAPTAIN MEDUSAtalk 21:27, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The article was quite poor, but I don't think there can be much doubt that the organisation is notable, given the scale of its operations. I've found quite a lot of independent sources, but I'm afraid it looks even more promotional because I haven't found anything at all critical of the firm. Rathfelder (talk) 22:55, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete since subject's notability is supported mostly by advertorials, brochures, and assorted puffery. -The Gnome (talk) 13:30, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: @Rathfelder: if you've got specific sources, you should list them here.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- RoySmith (talk) 00:18, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Which of the citations are regarded as advertorials, brochures, and assorted puffery?Rathfelder (talk) 12:28, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Move to draft. It will either be brought up to standards there, or abandoned and deleted. bd2412 T 03:38, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:19, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:ORG. Captain Eek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 07:31, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
There is in depth coverage in an independent source published in February.^[1] Bear in mind that this is a franchise operation, not a conventional organisation, and certainly in the UK it is a very significant player with plenty of coverage, though mostly in local newspapers.Rathfelder (talk) 14:02, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ "THE BIG INTERVIEW: Martin Jones, Managing Director, Home Instead Senior Care". Home Care Insight. 22 February 2019. Retrieved 16 March 2019.

Sorry, but I don't think an interview with the managing director which him a free field for promotion is a very good source. Do you think it's in-depth and independent, really? Bishonen | talk 13:13, 17 March 2019 (UTC).[reply]

Its a trade paper and so as independent as any trade paper. It is in a reasonable amount of depth for a trade paper. Rathfelder (talk) 21:30, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
There seems to be coverage from a wide variety of sources in several countries. Bigwig7 (talk) 12:07, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That's not a very helpful comment without naming some of the sources. The only "source" you have added to the article is obviously user-generated. Does the "wide variety" include any independent secondary sources? Bishonen | talk 13:13, 17 March 2019 (UTC). PS, sorry, I see you added one more as I was typing this. Bishonen | talk 13:17, 17 March 2019 (UTC).[reply]

I count 18 independent secondary sources: Home Care Insight, Waterford Live, Franchise Times Corporation (perhaps - not very clear what that is), Time magazine, The Franchise magazine, Toronto.com, Kelowna Courier, Connaught Telegraph, Sunday Times, Healthcare Business, Teesside Live, Homecare.co.uk, Weston Mercury, Bucks Herald, Ipswich Star, Newark Advocate, Sandusky Register, Detroit Free Press. For a social care organisation that is a lot. Social care doesnt get much coverage, and this organisation seems to be a significant provider. There is also clearly some significant coverage by the Care Quality Commission which I haven't included in the article because I think it would make it look more like a brochure. Our coverage of social care is very weak. I think we need to keep this article. Rathfelder (talk) 21:26, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Some of the sources in the article such as TIME, Sunday Times, and Detroit Free Press seem promising. Can we have more eyes on this?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:36, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The reasoning provided by Rathfelder is not the criteria used for sources for the purposes of establishing notability. As per WP:ORGIND, the definition of "independent" as applied to "independent secondary sources" means that the sources must contain independent content and excludes articles that rely almost entirely on interviews. Further, merely paraphrasing or repeating company-produced content is not enough as in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. None of the sources provided meet these criteria for establishing notability, therefore topic fails WP:NCORP and GNG. HighKing⁺⁺ 20:47, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- I cant see anything in the policy which says that we cannot count sources which rely upon interviews. The article in Time has quite a lot of depth. So has the Sunday Times. Ratings by the Care Quality Commission, a statutory body, are completely independent and in considerable depth. Their inspections are precisely investigation, analysis and fact checking. Rathfelder (talk) 22:34, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - Rathfelder, section 2.6 of WP:NCORP lists "memoirs or interviews by executives" as an example of a "Primary sources" and cannot be used for the purposes of establishing notability. Also I've pointed out above the criteria for sources must include *original* and *independent* opinion/analysis/investigation/fact checking/etc from sources not affiliated with the subject. Further, while the Care Quality Commission is independent and provides independent analysis/fact checking/etc, the other fact is that they are the independent regulator of health and social care in England and its their job to produce reports on *all* health care providers and as such is not an indication of notability. HighKing⁺⁺ 13:56, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    - The notability as far as CQC reports are concerned is not the existence of the reports. It's the categorisation as outstanding. Not at all commonplace. It appears to me that you are setting a standard of notability far above the vast majority of our articles about organisations. Rathfelder (talk) 16:09, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      - Except the CQC reports do not meet the criteria for establishing notability since it is mandatory for the CQC to produce a report on each establishment. The subsequent categorisation is therefore of not consequence. Also, the guidelines containing the criteria for organisations is the same and each are held to the same standard - documented in WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 22:07, 30 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    - NB the question of notability is considered in relation to the existence of evidence. Not just what is in the article. Many of the references to the firm in the USA are not available to me because I am in the UK. Furthermore there is probably coverage in other languages in the other countries in which the firm operates.Rathfelder (talk) 17:01, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      - Can you explain why you say "the references to the firm in the USA are not available to me because I am in the UK"? I would have thought that Google would work just fine regardless? HighKing⁺⁺ 22:07, 30 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Google isnt the problem. Some news websites give me messages like this: 451: Unavailable due to legal reasons. We recognize you are attempting to access this website from a country belonging to the European Economic Area (EEA) including the EU which enforces the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) and therefore access cannot be granted at this time. For any issues, contact [email protected] or call 304-348-5140.

Rathfelder (talk) 22:20, 30 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The firm won The Queen's Award for Enterprise: Innovation (2016). I think that makes it quite notable. Furthermore its relationship with GrandPad is generating interest. Rathfelder (talk) 00:36, 31 March 2019 (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.

[1] "THE BIG INTERVIEW: Martin Jones, Managing Director, Home Instead Senior Care". Home Care Insight. 22 February 2019. Retrieved 16 March 2019.

[1]