Draft talk:Mediplus
Add topic | This draft does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||
Mediplus Article Page
[edit]This user, in accordance with the Wikimedia Foundation's Terms of Use, discloses that they have been paid by Mediplus Ltd for the creation of the Mediplus wikipedia page Johnperkins121 (talk) 08:15, 6 February 2026 (UTC)
Contested deletion
[edit]I respectfully disagree with the deletion tag under CSD A7. While the article currently includes regulatory listings such as FDA establishment and BSI certification, the subject also meets Wikipedia’s notability threshold because there are reliable, independent secondary sources that discuss the company and its products in context beyond marketing materials. Regulatory listings are verifiable, but I will add independent clinical evaluations to further support notability.
I plan to add references from reputable clinical sources that analyse Mediplus’s devices or their impact on clinical practice. With those, the article will clearly satisfy Wikipedia’s notability requirements. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnperkins121 (talk • contribs) 15:57, 6 February 2026 (UTC)
- I have added two further independent references in addition to the regulatory listings on the FDA and BSI websites. I now believe this article will clearly satisfy Wikipedia’s notability requirements. Johnperkins121 (talk) 17:10, 6 February 2026 (UTC)
Response to February 2026 decline – resubmission notes
[edit]The draft has been updated to address the three criteria raised.
Five new references have been added. Two are from The Gazette's official Queen's Awards for Enterprise Press Books (2013 and 2017), which contain substantive editorial descriptions of Mediplus's trading and innovation achievements. A third is an independent report in Lifescience Industry News (2021) covering the clinical adoption of the S-Cath System in Texas, including quantified patient outcome data. A fourth is a peer-reviewed clinical evaluation in the Internet Journal of Urology (Vasdev et al., 2006). A fifth is a regional business press article from Buckinghamshire Business First covering the 2017 Queen's Award.
None of these sources are connected to Mediplus. All are published by organisations with editorial oversight. Together with the existing peer-reviewed references and NICE guidance already in the draft, we believe the article now demonstrates notability through multiple independent, reliable sources providing significant coverage.
Second resubmission following decline – April 2026
[edit]The draft has been updated in response to the reviewer's feedback that it read as a corporate brochure. The new version is structured around what independent secondary sources say about Mediplus, rather than what the company says about itself. The leadership team details and all company-sourced language have been removed. The content is now driven by the following independent secondary sources:
The two Queen's Awards for Enterprise (2013 and 2017) are documented through the official Queen's Awards Press Books published in The Gazette, supplemented by contemporaneous reporting in Buckinghamshire Business First. NICE published formal guidance on the S-Cath System in June 2016, and the NHS Technology Adoption Centre published an independent briefing assessing its clinical and financial benefits. Three peer-reviewed clinical evaluations of the S-Cath System have been cited — in Expert Review of Medical Devices (Mohammed et al., 2008), Continence UK (McMeekin et al., 2010) and the Internet Journal of Urology (Vasdev et al., 2006). Independent trade reporting in Lifescience Industry News (2021) covers the device's adoption in the US market.
We believe the rewritten draft now meets the notability criteria, with the subject's significance established through independent, reliable secondary sources rather than through self-description. Johnperkins121 (talk) 09:04, 23 April 2026 (UTC)