Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lug Healthcare Technology

: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. czar 05:03, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

=[[:Lug Healthcare Technology]]=

:{{la|Lug Healthcare Technology}} – (View AfDView log{{int:dot-separator}} [https://tools.wmflabs.org/jackbot/snottywong/cgi-bin/votecounter.cgi?page=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Lug_Healthcare_Technology Stats])

:({{Find sources AFD|Lug Healthcare Technology}})

I looked into this for the reference point of view. this is completely driven by corporate promotions. this is non-notable for wikipedia standards. they might have received awards and covered in few media.. but in this way every company will be listed in wikipedia and it will become a directory for such companies. Light2021 (talk) 18:30, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

:Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 18:37, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

:Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 18:37, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

:Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 18:38, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

Delete - every source is original research, which is sometimes appropriate for drugs and illnesses, but not persons. Bearian (talk) 20:02, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

:: Uh {{Reply to|Bearian}} is this rationale for the correct debate because this is about a company, even though the Supreme Court has ruled that corporations are like people. PainProf (talk) 23:04, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

{{resize|91%|Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.}}
Relisting comment: Note that nominator has been blocked for using afd when he was banned from it. The only reason I have not kept this is a good faith dete vote.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 20:41, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

Delete The article itself indicates the company is not notable, it describes releasing a limited custom software in a couple hospitals in spain, nothing really going on. Its not a major company and I couldn't find additional sources. PainProf (talk) 23:04, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

:I agree, and I stand by my original rationale, but let me explain. Having primary sources are common in scientific articles in Wikipedia and are found on every "infobox" about species, drugs, diseases, etc. Such primary sources about humans and corporations tend to be listings or self-created sources of information. For example, a musician may be interviewed by a popular magazine; that is allowed to be used as a source of information, but not as the only source, in an article. Likewise, an article about a drug will often have original research about its uses and side effects, which is okay - as long as it's not the only source of information in the article. This subject page is basically just a bunch of original research about the company, and I suspect, indirectly by the company. Many businesses will self-report research about their finances and products, and it will be picked up by the media without any comment, editing, or analysis. That's not significant, independent reporting or writing that we expect of a business. Bearian (talk) 17:01, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

: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.