Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Healthera
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 
— User:HighKing, 14:17, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
Stance: comment
Cited policy: WP:HEY||WP:NCORP (Wikipedia:The Heymann Standard)