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.
Interview - consists entirely of content attributed to the company, failing WP:ORGIND
Interview - consists entirely of content attributed to the company, failing WP:ORGIND
This reads like a press release, despite the lack of explicit language admitting to such, and has no listed author so I'm not convinced it's reliable.
Consists entirely of content attributed to the company, failing WP:ORGIND
This looks promising, but I can't access it.
No mention of the topic I can find
WP:TOI should not be used to establish notability for companies, and in any event except for the first paragraph which doesn't satisfy WP:CORPDEPTH this consists entirely of content attributed to the company, failing WP:ORGIND
Does not discuss the topic in sufficient depth to satisfy WP:CORPDEPTH
Does not discuss the topic in sufficient depth to satisfy WP:CORPDEPTH and given the tone and the lack of a listed author I'm not convinced it's reliable either.
The article itself is both from the Times and India and does not discuss the topic in sufficient depth to satisfy WP:CORPDEPTH. The case study itself is more interesting, but does that make a reliable source?
Duplicate of source 9
Primary source
So there may be a vague glimmer of merit smothered under the REFBOMB, but not enough to let this title-gaming slip by without review. * Pppery *it has begun... 21:47, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Great source assessment. I did a spot check of the current sourcing and also a quick search online. Cannot find anything that meets WP:ORGCRIT. Plenty of mentions, churnalism, or otherwise unreliable sourcing. Nothing that would show CORPDEPTH. --CNMall41 (talk) 01:45, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
without reviewing the in-depth of source, ofcourse it will show nothing, thanks for your suggestion Captain sparrow199 (talk) 05:53, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
delete: made to evade a salting, fails multiple guidelines, cites various strange sources. if that's not grounds for deletion i don't know what is. Noelle!!! (summon a demonorread smth) 16:31, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or maybe redirect to Medical_tourism#India. I'd put this on my to-do list because there was so much spamming going on in the general category, the sourcing looked extremely thin, and I wasn't sure how to assess the case study, but either way I don't think the case study is enough. Valereee (talk) 17:52, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
did few changes in article, share your suggestion again Captain sparrow199 (talk) 05:51, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've reverted an attempt by the creator to move this to draft namespace out of process while the AfD was still pending. * Pppery *it has begun... 15:24, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not notable, written like an advertisement, and created by gaming the system.Thanks,NeuropolTalk 13:18, 13 June 2024 (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.
