Deletion of Healthera

Comment: In my opinion, none of the references meet the criteria for establishing notability. The https://www.chemistanddruggist.co.uk/news/ccg-healthera-app-prescriptions-pharmacies Chemist and Druggist reference is not in-depth and there is no evidence of ''original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject'' as is required as per . The reasoning provided by Siliu.3310 and supported by Bondegezou is not based on policies or guidelines and, in fact, is contrary to  guidelines. References that are based on company announcements (such as funding announcements) may be used to support facts or information within the article (so long as they are from reliable sources, etc) but are not counted towards meeting the criteria for establishing notability and fail . Blog posts are not considered reliable sources and shouldn't be used for any reason. A listing on an apps site does not provide any in-depth information on the company and fails . The criteria for notability is fairly strict for companies/organizations. This topic fails GNG and 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:ORGIND||WP:NCORP||WP:ORGIND||WP:CORPDEPTH||WP:NCORP)

Comment: I agree with {{u|Sliu.3110}} that the https://www.chemistanddruggist.co.uk/news/ccg-healthera-app-prescriptions-pharmacies Chemist and Druggist reference has been written by  independent journalists but that's as far as it goes. I disagree that there is any original and independent investigation or fact checking ''about the company'' - which is key for considering sources for the purposes of establishing notability since is the company that is the topic of this article. This article is simply a short report on a disagreement between the NHS's decision to allow clients to use the Healthera app and the CEO of Kent LPC. For that matter, the reference also fails 
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:CORPDEPTH)

Comment: Please don't put words in my mouth. I did not say or suggest that Chemist and Druggist does not have systems in place to prevent poor reporting and faulty journalism. I note you didn't respond to my point about the article lacking any original and independent investigation or fact checking ''about the company''. I also note you didn't respond to the point that the article has no in-depth reporting ''on the company''. These are required for references that may be used to establish notability as per the guidelines. Your point about the Business Weekly being the "original" and therefore all the other articles being copied from that source is a real stretch and just sounds desperate. Not only is it tantamount to saying that all of those other publications are not reliable sources because they rip off other publications without crediting the original but the fact is, it appears https://www.uktech.news/tech-hubs/the-east-of-england/healthera-raises-3m-series-a-to-scale-across-the-uk-20180816 this article was published at 08:28, a good 44 minutes before the Business Weekly article. Finally, your point about the NHS and the POD system doesn't take away from the fact that it shows they are not neutral third parties but are client/customers/partners in delivering a service which the blog post was promoting. If you can locate any other references that you believe meet the criteria for establishing notability, please post them here and we will provide our comments and perhaps |change our mind but until that happens, the references to date fail the criteria and the topic fails GNG and 
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:The Heymann Standard (WP:HEY||WP:NCORP)

Comment: Fails . Coverage is either in-depth or in form of rewritten press releses about business-as-usual/invest-in-us. Some refs are broken, https://www.cambridgenetwork.co.uk/news/healthera-among-top-30-tech-companies-to-watch/ claims to be from Business Weakly but takes us to a broken 404 page at some '' is a commercial business networking organisation'', which I guess means spam-distributor, and I guess they didn't pay their fee to have their spam sources up
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:NORG)