Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Included Health: Difference between revisions

Included Health (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)

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

Highly promotional with heavy use of company press releases and of questionable WP:SUSTAINED notability backed up by independent WP:RS. Also, potential WP:COI at play involving WP:SPAs. Amigao (talk) 01:51, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• KEEP Notability exists but promotional language needed to be toned down. Removed information that strayed from the subject and toned down language to make this entry more neutral. Agree this should be kept up given the independent sourcing that exists but open to edits. Pistachiosmiles53 (talk) 21:24, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Also worth mentioning that we are now seeing WP:SPAs appear here that may have a potential WP:COI. – Amigao (talk) 21:49, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

delete per nom + the sockpuppetry has confirmed my suspicions that this is largely promotional junk ToeSchmoker (talk) 22:03, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per WP:ORGCRIT 173.206.50.207 (talk) 23:06, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I’d like to see a source review from some more experienced editors. This is heavily referenced but what is the quality of these sources?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:16, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: This is just spam. There’s no reason to try to defend it. MediaKyle (talk) 12:26, 9 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Move to draft or userfy. This is one of those financial envelopes that sit round real companies (the kind that deliver actual services). The financial envelope’s apparent notability comes from finance-oriented publications. I suspect that these publications exist to promote risky investment in such financial envelopes. I would be a lot more impressed if someone built a little family of articles on the various companies that were merged into this financial envelope, and which used more obviously valid sources in addition to the type used here.— Toddy1 (talk) 12:49, 9 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Move to draft – The subject appears to meet potential WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:GNG thresholds, as it is covered by independent outlets like CNBC, Fortune, Forbes, and STAT News. However, the article currently suffers from promotional tone and overreliance on press releases, raising WP:ORGCRIT and WP:COI concerns. Moving to draft space would allow further cleanup and sourcing improvements before mainspace restoration. SanneMonte (talk) 14:26, 9 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]