Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Virtus 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 Keep as another has suggested nothing else and the improvements suggest convincing (NAC). SwisterTwister talk 07:39, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Virtus Health

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

This article is partially written like an advertisement for the company and I do not see the notability for why it should be on Wikipedia. The CSD was contested and I have therefore converted to AfD. I would recommend that it is deleted. Dane2007 (talk) 05:44, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:53, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:53, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:53, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There are multiple reliable sources writing about this company, including the WSJ, Canberra Times and Financial Review: Passes GNG. It's also the largest IVF provider in Australia. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 17:20, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Notability clearly established, even if the article is poorly written. Once again, quality of sources or of article is not a factor in a notability discussion. Montanabw ^(talk) 21:06, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 ^talk 16:08, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- "largest fertility provider" and "publicly traded company" suggests notability to me. Worth pruning and keeping. K.e.coffman (talk) 07:26, 7 August 2016 (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.