Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Integrity Health

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 delete. MBisanz ^talk 00:02, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Integrity Health[edit]

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

Promotional. No evidence of notability. Devoid of content Rathfelder (talk) 18:16, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A promotional piece Heyyouoverthere (talk) 01:08, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Gotta be more specific with the search parameters. Look for Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL -- and you'll find enough stuff. Good luck, — Cirt (talk) 06:12, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:33, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:44, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:44, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:44, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as I simply found nothing better. SwisterTwister talk 07:22, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 20:25, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The single local newspaper cited is clearly insufficient on its own. Searches located five more independent, reliable, secondary sources: [1], [2], [3], [4], [5].

The problem is that they are all sources in a limited area (the company seems to do business in a handful of counties of New Jersey). To satisfy WP:CORP, there needs to be at least one international, national, or regional (which in this context I would interpret to mean North or Mid-Atlantic States) source. For me a New York or Philadelphia media outlet, for example, would demonstrate notability region-wide rather than just in northern New Jersey. Note, however, that the wording of WP:AUD has changed in the last few days after a discussion of whether The Star-Ledger (one of the sources above) is or is not, by itself, a regional source. Opinions on how the new wording affects this AfD are welcome. Worldbruce (talk) 19:23, 11 October 2015 (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.