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.
Does the hospital clear the notability bar because it's associated with certain celebrities and because it seemingly peddles outrageously overpriced and questionably effective treatments?
The most solid source is the lengthy, ample coverage in the BBC article, but I would say it covers Gemma Nuttall's story more than it does the clinic. Almost everything is anecdotal. Mooonswimmer04:42, 24 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't say that the BBC is the strongest souce here. Surely a chapter written by an oncologist in a book edited by another oncologist and from an academic publisher (the Gorski source) is even better? And nobody is claiming what is said in the first sentence. This may clear the notability bar because of significant coverage in independent reliable sources, not because it's associated with certain celebrities and because it seemingly peddles outrageously overpriced and questionably effective treatments. Phil Bridger (talk) 09:11, 24 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hearsay the sources are at best anecdotal as Mooonswimmer outlined. Gorski, a breast surgeon and medical influencer in the field of off-label therapies, also just refers to the same yellow press anecdots in his book. He is an acedemic publisher but in regard to the Hallwang Clinic he unforttunately cites absolutly non-academic and insufficient. It clearly appears as an opinion paper. Besides that, the clinic and it´s size is irrelevant for an encyclopedia. Sero esprite (talk) 16:56, 25 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This accusation is totally incorrect I am active in the german Wikipedia since several years focusing on political topics but came across since the deletion discussion for this clinic on the german page . Finally the german colleagues have deleted the page from the german Wiki , due too its irrelevance . Sero esprite (talk) 17:17, 25 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
DELETE : note to closer, this user (Roxy the dog) appears to have strong actual conflict of interest WP:ACTUALCOI because the user is heavily involved in the editing and discussions of David Gorsk´s Wiki page and articles and supports with his own user page David Gorski´s view. The user should have clearly disclosed this as a respected editor. My policy based comment is that Hallwang Clinic, recommended for deletion, is not fullfilling the notability bar which has been recognized by the German Wiki and the lack of solid sources. The anecdotal sources provided are strongly connected to David Gorski. In addition, the article, Hallwang Clinic, appears to clearly violate the neutrality view of how to write an article WP:NPOV. I will check the COI of Phil Bridger and report shortly. Feel free to check my editing activity on the German Wiki under the same User Name, there is no COI. Sero esprite (talk) 20:19, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The Talk page might indeed indicate at least a potential COI by the user (Phil Bridger) particularly in his discussions about insertions of David Gorski´s citations under the subtitle: Response to deletion by Phil Bridger of content that might not be linked to the Hallwang Clinic, with a strong emphasize by the user to promote David Gorski´s opinion. Since this is a relative and potential COI that should of course not exclude the user arguments provided, I refer to my specific comments above about the WP:N and WP:NPOV which is not provided here. As also provided on the TALK page the article has been given a rating of low interest.Sero esprite (talk) 20:49, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The reference in Gorskis publication is anecdotal and about an individual case. He does not provide any information from the Hallwang Clinic by his own but only anecdotal quotes. His book is rather drafted like an opinion publication and Hallwang Clinic plays a subordinate role in the overall context.
Delete (imho): Following the invitation from Roxy to join the discussion, and as a newbie, I see a certain not unimportant dilemma: I would like to question whether it might even appear in a false sense positive for the Clinic, as a promotion, being recognized here in the worldwide largest encyclopedia although the clinic appears to be very small and does not even find any attention in the German press or the German Wiki. Just in my expected base case scenario that the article would not be deleted, even in the best sense of looking from the angle of Roxy or Phil, the article is definitively written in way that takes a side. I think this becomes clear by just reading the second sentence of the article. I don't know the clinic but the description of the clinic stands against the neutrality that an encyclopedia should definitely protect and reflect WP:NPOV. As a result, one would need to review the one-sided comments and as a result the dilemma would be an unintended "promotion article" for a private company. I therefore vote with delete based on the irrelevance of this article, I see WP:NRV not fulfilled, because after taking time to review the comments above and the references attached to the article, the references are crossreferring each other around David Gorski´s publication. I follow David Gorski´s view about scientific evidence for treatments but it appears that there is an intended lack of source for the article. The article appears strongly influenced and therefore I'm suspicious. I would suggest to involve more senior editors to look at this because these kind of articles can damage Wiki´s reputation as an independent encyclopedia. Jonote22 (talk) 14:42, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - clearly fails WP:CORPDEPTH. Almost all of the coverage is controversies related which are events. So, create an article on the event if event is notable as a company can't become notable for some routine coverage/news reporting. 142.119.127.36 (talk) 15:38, 30 December 2022 (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.