Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fullerton Health Group: Difference between revisions

Fullerton Health Group (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)

Doesn’t seem to pass WP:NCORP. Article is mostly advertorial. Aleain (talk) 03:50, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Keep per Oblivy. May I ask why you removed a controversy section regarding a co-founder submitting fake claims? aesurias (talk) 04:18, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is a large healthcare organization in Singapore, has been the subject of international investment interest particularly from Japanese investors, and has expanded throughout Asia-pacific including in Hong Kong and Philippines. I was able to quickly find the following independent sources, including coverage of the false claims case, a restructuring dispute, Japanese investment, and a data breach involving clinic records:

While I can’t see the original, and it’s probably not SIRS because it’s just a case study and thus not subject to editorial control, this Harvard business school case study seems to add to the appearance of notability: https://repository.gheli.harvard.edu/repository/11668/As noted by @Aesurias above, the nominator blanked a well-sourced controversy section here[1] just prior to the bringing of an AfD. This removal of negative material is particularly troubling given the claim is that this article is “mostly advertorial”. I would be interested to know the reason, as no edit summary was provided. Oblivy (talk) 05:08, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have retracted my vote until the OP is back on site to answer. I am unable to really understand a reason for removing it.

The existing article is not great but your sources have changed my mind, it’s certainly improvable. aesurias (talk) 05:12, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I would not object to restoring the controversy section. However, the article as a whole still does not appear to meet Wikipedia’s notability standards, whether due to its original advertorial tone or articles of broader issues involving the company. This shouldn’t be the place for corporate promotion nor is it a venue for critics to take aim at a company. There are already other platforms suited for those purposes, surely? Aleain (talk) 06:26, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I’m still not understanding why you removed that one section. Why are you naturally compelled to disregard WP:AGF and claim the perfectly valid controversy section was added by “critics…tak[ing] aim” at the company? I am very confused! aesurias (talk) 12:25, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I get the sense (although I’d still like to hear it from @Aleain) that this was a reaction to the editing of @Cranberrymagic88 who recently registered and started editing Raffles Medical Group with neutral to positive content[2]. That led to blanking without an edit summary, followed by a COI template[3] on their user page which hasn’t been answered.So it’s not a longstanding piece of text (which is the more objectionable type of stubify-then-AfD misconduct. But it doesn’t seem fair either to delete it and then claim the page is unambiguously positive. Oblivy (talk) 13:19, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Aesurias:, I removed it because I believed that @Cranberrymagic88: might have a potential COI involving Raffles Medical Group, given their editing history there. This raised the possibility that their contributions to Fullerton Health Group, a separate company in the same sector, could be influenced by competing interests and that adding negative material might serve that purpose. I am not sure why you continue to feel “confused” about my reverts, unless you are trying to allude that I somehow have a COI with Fullerton Health Group, an article that I do not even consider suitable for inclusion on Wikipedia? Aleain (talk) 13:57, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The sourcing for the deleted part is reliable though, as far as I can see. If you believe a user has a COI, do something about it rather than quietly removing their properly-sourced edits with zero explanation. aesurias (talk) 20:28, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

For my part, the concern was that this AfD was immediately preceded by the removal of independent reporting on the article subject. While my own analysis above effectively dispels my concern that this was a hit-job, the pattern of degrading articles then bringing AfD’s is a real thing and in my opinion this all needed explaining in the edit summary and in this AfD. Oblivy (talk) 22:50, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Health and fitness, Companies, and Singapore. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:30, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep – There is significant coverage that meets WP:CORPDEPTH, including its failed IPO, potential sale, and a general in-depth article. As far as controversies, it seems to be related directly to the company but would suggest incorporating it under history so as to avoid WP:CSECTION. —CNMall41 (talk) 06:47, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment article has been overhauled, although it could still use some polishing. I trimmed the lead, moved most of the content into the history section, and integrated the controversy material into history as suggested. Most of the sources from this AfD discussion have been added, athough I didn’t add the SCMP article (puff piece) or the FT article (couldn’t access) identified by @CNMall41. Oblivy (talk) 10:10, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

How embarrassing (for me) as I did not see the SCMP was written by a branding partner. These are the sources I always advocate against so not sure how I didn’t see that. I did another quick search and found this textbook which covers it in-depth as well as this from Bloomberg which is one of may covering the sale. Still feel its notable but I apologize for presenting a crap source. —CNMall41 (talk) 00:24, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Happens to the best of us! Oblivy (talk) 00:51, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]