Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/OPTP

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. Per the discussion herein, relative to Wikipedia's notability guidelines (e.g. WP:CORPDEPTH, WP:GNG), the topic presently does not qualify for an article. There are also WP:NOTPROMO concerns brought up in the discussion here. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:15, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

OPTP

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

promotional and non notable; the refs are mere listings, and press releases DGG ( talk ) 05:23, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Totally agree with the above. WP:PROMO and fails WP:GNG and WP:CORP. Joseph2302 (talk) 14:25, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This page provides an historical and factual account of a Minneapolis-based corporation. The OPTP page content is similar in nature to its fellow competitors (take Gaiam, for example: Gaiam ) and it would seem that if those company pages are not marked for deletion and provide value to Wikipedia that the OPTP page should be no different. Information on the OPTP page is designed to be useful for customers and non-customers alike, as well as individuals, businesses and healthcare organizations connected to the health and well-being and/or physical therapy industries. The page includes 11 internal Wiki links for cross-reference and educational purposes, as well as 15 reference links, only three of which are taken directly from the OPTP website; all others from credible third party sources. Jcrane20 (talk) 14:49, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the suggested promotional nature of the “OPTP” page: All statements included in the article appear to be factual and without bias. This content would be informative and helpful to anyone seeking unbiased information about the company and its history. The open source nature of Wikipedia provides transparency and neutrality that cannot be guaranteed from the company’s own publications, and for this reason I believe the article would be helpful to Wikipedia’s users. If this page is deemed promotional, it would seem the same would be true for any article about a corporation. Noteworthiness is of course subjective, but the company’s involvement with noteworthy individuals such as Eric Franklin and Robin McKenzie, and organizations such as the International Spine & Pain Institute and the International Academy of Orthopedic Medicine seems reason enough for the page’s existence. Joelmorehouse (talk) 14:50, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes but the article actually needs better sourcing such as news coverage and my comment below shows I found a little but not enough. It's not blatantly promotional but it's because the fact there are a few press releases and little news coverage. SwisterTwister talk 14:57, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as the need for better sourcing has not been addressed and my searches here, here and here found nothing significant and notable. SwisterTwister talk 14:57, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Would anyone be able to provide recommendations as to which specific areas require stronger sources and what those stronger sources might look like in order to retain the page? Will update accordingly... Jcrane20 (talk) 13:48, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

More significant, in-depth and notable coverage such as news, not press releases and primary links. SwisterTwister talk 16:32, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Minnesota-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:07, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:07, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:07, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:07, 23 May 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.