Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/InnovaCare 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 17:07, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

InnovaCare Health

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

Spam by an editor who has declared that they were paid to create this article. It fails both points of WP:N: the coverage in the article and seen in a BEFORE search is your typical press release churn or trivial coverage that is excluded by WP:SPIP and WP:ORGIND as counting towards the general and it is obvious promotion that is excluded by WP:NOTSPAM. As such, we have no choice but to delete it from Wikipedia. TonyBallioni (talk) 21:39, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom ~dom Kaos~ (talk) 22:01, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you both for your input. I have edited the page and would ask for your reconsideration. I don't think it's fair to punish someone for disclosing interests per WP:PAID, and I must disagree with your notability assessment. The company's founder is a well-known entrepreneur and philanthropist. Furthermore, the company's presence as one of the largest healthcare companies in Puerto Rico is especially newsworthy today. I've tried to make this clearer on the page. Thank you again.Bama371084 (talk) 23:46, 20 November 2017 (UTC)— Preceding unsigned comment added by Bama371084 (talk • contribs) 23:41, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Disclosure of paid editing is not an exemption from local policies and guidelines. It is the bare minimum required to hit the save button. Promotional editing is always disallowed, regardless of disclosure status per WP:NOTSPAM, the local policy governing promotional articles and editing on the English Wikipedia. TonyBallioni (talk) 23:56, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Understood. Have you checked the latest version of the page? I would be curious to know what specifically you consider promotional. Bama371084 (talk) 14:21, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 15:40, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 15:40, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 15:40, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable company that fails WP:CORPDEPTH, as nothing substantial about the workings of the company can be gleaned from the cited sources. I also lean towards WP:MILL, as nothing indicates to me why this company is individually notable when compared to similar companies. Per nom, this article seems to be promotional and would likely not exist if an editor had not been paid to create it. SamHolt6 (talk) 01:09, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:GNG and WP:CORPDEPTH. The first reference is also misleading as it makes it look like the company was talked about in a major publication when it fact in only mentions a company that the apparent founders were previously involved with. --CNMall41 (talk) 22:29, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does not meet notability guidelines. Hrodvarsson (talk) 22:36, 26 November 2017 (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.