Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/AmeriHealth

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 keep. No arguments for deletion aside from the nominator. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:07, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

AmeriHealth

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

non-notable company. While covered in multiple sources, such coverage is brief, centred around other things or press releases. Fails WP:ORG. Ironholds (talk) 16:42, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. -- –Juliancolton | ^Talk 17:31, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. -- –Juliancolton | ^Talk 17:31, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - Because the company has such a broad scope, insuring so many people, I think it should be kept. -shirulashem^(talk) 19:38, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Unless I've missed something that isn't a valid reason to keep something. If this company is truly "important" it will be able to pass the relatively low standard set by WP:ORG. Ironholds (talk) 20:21, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Major company in NY and surroundings. The article needs considerable rewriting to free it from spam. DGG (talk) 22:38, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It also needs sourcing. If a company fails WP:ORG it isn't notable. Ironholds (talk) 10:05, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. Hundreds of news articles, dozens of books, many (generally brief) mentions in scholarly articles for this subsidiary of a publicly traded company -- it's obviously notable. WP:ORG doesn't require that someone has already gone to the trouble of incorporating the available reliable sources -- only that such sources exist. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:57, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Lots of sources exist, the article has a place at Wikipedia. That no one has incorporated them yet is a content issue, not a notability one. See [1]. --Jayron32 21:24, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - There are many sources, and the article meets the relevant notability guideline. ---kilbad (talk) 21:44, 25 July 2009 (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.