Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vera Clinic

{{AFD help}}

:{{la|1=Vera Clinic}} – (View AfDView log | edits since nomination)

:({{Find sources AFD|title=Vera Clinic}})

Notability. "the official hair transplant partner of England's Premier League team, Everton FC."... someone is surely having a giraffe. TheLongTone (talk) 17:09, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Health and fitness, Companies, and Turkey. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:50, 7 November 2023 (UTC)
• Delete 100% promotional, and no independent or in-depth coverage found. Listed sources are all WP:ROUTINE passing coverage, likely press releases, or obvious COI. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 01:14, 8 November 2023 (UTC)
• Keep some independent sources may be found; potentailly notable as a niche clinic. --BoraVoro (talk) 11:06, 8 November 2023 (UTC)
• Which sources did you feel met with WP:CORP? Sam Kuru (talk) 13:21, 8 November 2023 (UTC)
• :hm, I withdraw my vote. good comments by others by the way! BoraVoro (talk) 09:01, 9 November 2023 (UTC)
• Delete, removed a lot of the clearly-identified paid placement advertorials. Most of it was pure adcopy and obviously unacceptable. The rest seems to be niche junk, tabloids, and brief mentions of a sports sponsorship. Looking for other sources is challenging, given the amount of SEO and PR the company employs. I did not immediately find anything useful, but I now know what "having a giraffe" means, so there's that. Sam Kuru (talk) 13:21, 8 November 2023 (UTC)
• User:Kuru, the article was much funnier before you started cleaning it up. I always love the Hindustan Times. Drmies (talk) 13:23, 8 November 2023 (UTC)
• Always glad to be of service!TheLongTone (talk) 15:35, 8 November 2023 (UTC)
• Delete. As written, this is spam. The current sources don't satisfy WP:NCORP, and even if new sources were to be uncovered, it would need entirely re-writing from the ground up, so WP:TNT applies. Girth Summit _(blether) 16:50, 8 November 2023 (UTC)
• Delete — I couldn't find any additional sourcing in my search that was noteworthy: just the same paid-for PR articles, thus failing NCORP. I wouldn't have minded if this was speedied with G11 pre-cleanup (tbf, still wouldn't mind). Also interesting to note the weird editing pattern of the creator. Styyx (talk) 21:29, 8 November 2023 (UTC)
• I agree with the others. I came to the same conclusion as Kuru about the paid advertorials, after finding quite a few of them that weren't even in the article, some actually marked as such in their bylines. The stuff about the football club is misrepresentation, as the small print of the press releases tells us that this is about the clinic paying for advertising at the football club, just like a whole load of other companies (named as examples in the PR fluff) do. There is no independent in-depth sourcing to be had. The article didn't have any before or now, and I cannot find any. Uncle G (talk) 05:54, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

{{clear}}

: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.