Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Viapath

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 no consensus. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 02:00, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Viapath

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not sufficiently notable Wayne Jayes 17:31, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:09, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:09, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:09, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Viapath is the best documented example I have found of a very significant phenomenon - the hiving off of pathology from NHS Trusts into commercial organisations. We need the WikiProject National Health Service to cover the development of privatisation. I was planning to produce more articles on other similar enterprises. Viapath runs 60 laboratories and provides pathology services for several million people. It has an annual income of £93 million, employs 1000 people and conducted more than 22 million pathology tests in 2013. Rathfelder (talk) 20:58, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mz7 (talk) 04:36, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep Pathology laboratories do not usually receive much (read:any) coverage, but the sources provided in the article suggest this one might be more notable than most. --MelanieN (talk) 01:12, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Davey2010 • (talk) 15:13, 12 July 2014 (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.