Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dr Morton's - the medical helpline

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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:11, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dr Morton's - the medical helpline[edit]

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

This article has referenciness but when you look into it the supposed references are just namechecks taken from a single piece of churnalism that was picked up by a few outlets. None of the sources are actually about this subject at all. Guy (Help!) 12:36, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Regards, KC Velaga ✉ 14:41, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Regards, KC Velaga ✉ 14:41, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Regards, KC Velaga ✉ 14:41, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

delete marginally notable subject. Jytdog (talk) 22:43, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
keep The article subject satisfies WP:ORGIN i.e. the organization is notable enough to justify a separate article on the verifiable evidence that the organization or product has attracted the notice of reliable sources unrelated to the organization or product. Further, per WP:GNG, Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material. Disclosure: article creator. Daicaregos (talk) 08:36, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The sources do not support that claim. They are simply churnalism, and none of them is about the subject (only namechecks). A namecheck is not "significant". Guy (Help!) 09:16, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

delete Notability is at best trivial. Agree with the churnalism comment above. TheOverflow (talk) 08:21, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete with no prejudice to recreation if more sources come up. Interesting initiative, but not notable on current information. May be too soon, sorry. Blythwood (talk) 23:00, 22 August 2016 (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.