Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Salutem Healthcare

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. Withdrawn by nominator, with no opposing !votes. (non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 19:33, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Salutem Healthcare

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

No more than native advertising. Fails WP:NCORP. scope_creep^Talk 22:50, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:51, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:51, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:51, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Its a significant provided of social care and there is plenty of independent coverage. Improve the article. Dont delete it. Rathfelder (talk) 14:40, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The referenes are routine annoucement and there is many many of these care homes companies, making it a fairly generic category. What makes this stand out? I honestly don't see much as it stands and the reference fails WP:NCORP. It looks like a native business listing and has had advertising tag for some while now. scope_creep^Talk 15:43, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Not at all routine. It's taken over all Scope's services. That makes it significant in itself. There are fewer big care homes companies than you might imagine (75% of care home providers run just one home), but the fact that there are other providers doesnt mean we shouldnt have an article about this one. After all there are also lots of hospitals. Social care is very significant and our coverage of it is poor. Rathfelder (talk) 16:41, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm open to suggestions but at the moment 5 out the 6 references fail WP:CORPDEPTH as routine announcements and the last one, which is the first one, fails WP:ORGIND specifically. Not one decent reference. A formulation of some kind of approach is required I think. Showing it is significant compared to other cares homes in the UK perhaps. But at the same time, Wikipedia can't be a listing service for care companies in general, or any company for that matter. We are not a directory. It would be a seriously bad thing if we were. scope_creep^Talk 17:47, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There isnt a huge amount of coverage of the company as a whole (and some of what there is is behind a paywall), but there will be coverage of most of the 130 services it runs, sometimes in considerable depth. Decisions to delete should not depend on what is actually in the article. NB this is not only a provider of care homes. Its a specialised provider for autism, cerebral palsy etc. The MBE also seems to indicate notability. Rathfelder (talk) 08:39, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:41, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I think article has been updated per the WP:HEYMANN standard. I think we should withdraw the nomination. scope_creep^Talk 16:31, 4 May 2021 (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.