Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Kansas City


 * 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. bd2412 T 12:16, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Kansas City

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

It seems that this regional insurance company is not sufficiently notable to meet the requirements of our now not-so-very-new WP:NCORP. Yes, it goes about its routine business, and some aspects of that business receive attention (or press-releases?) in the local business press. But despite discussion on the talk-page and the attentions of a (properly-disclosed) paid editor, no solid independent in-depth coverage has been found. Making a loss of $100 million might seem important or even inconceivable to ordinary people, but is not really significant in business terms (Parmalat managed to mislay about $16 billion a few years ago). Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 09:30, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 09:30, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 09:30, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 09:30, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kansas-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 10:05, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 10:07, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Speedy keep a simple click of the "news" link above shows ample news sources for the company. Google news, etc.  Loads of KC Star and such.--Paul McDonald (talk) 20:53, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment – I have a COI here (Blue KC is a client), so not voting. I would like to note that Excellus BlueCross BlueShield, Blue Cross Blue Shield of Massachusetts, Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Alabama, BlueCross BlueShield of South Carolina, Blue Cross Blue Shield of Michigan, Wellmark Blue Cross Blue Shield, and Blue Shield of California all exist under similar circumstances. Of course, I'm not arguing there is any inherited notability here, just that Wikipedia precedent seems to indicate that the subject matter is notable. Mary Gaulke (talk) 17:49, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
 * In fact, as part of a larger project, I would merge all or most Blue Cross/Blue Shield associations into that target article or, if article length is concerned, to Member companies of Blue Cross Blue Shield Assocation. Doug Mehus (talk) 18:47, 26 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Blue Cross Blue Shield Association. I tagged the original version of the present article with a Notability query in 2013 and more recently gave an assessment of its more recent text at Talk:Blue_Cross_and_Blue_Shield_of_Kansas_City, where I indicated my view that the current article references fell under the WP:ORGCRIT "Examples of trivial coverage". For this AfD I have taken a wider look for anything which might indicate notability for the company: again, I am seeing the routine coverage typical of a company going about its business, but nothing to satisfy WP:NCORP. AllyD (talk) 10:56, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment the nominator's case seems to be that the company is so big that a 100 million dollar loss is insignificant, which I would say would be a reason to keep and not delete. Are you guys really thinking about deleting this article?--Paul McDonald (talk) 03:51, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I'd personally favour a selective merge and redirect to the Blue Cross Blue Shield Assocation than to a delete, but to your question, as I understand it, a company's asset size or revenue is of little bearing in terms of notability. What matters is sufficient reliable sources which establish the organization's notability. No firm guideline as to how many, but the Wikipedia essay WP:THREE provides some guidance that is sometimes used in AfD discussions, as well as in page move and merge discussions. As well, even if there is sufficient reliable sources, WP:CORPDEPTH needs to be considered such that there are sufficient sources to write more than a perennial stub- or start-class article. In terms of company size, Central 1 Credit Union was recently deleted because, aside from the fact it was written like an advertisement, it generated little, if any, significant coverage by reliable sources, despite it having nearly $100 billion CAD in assets under management.Doug Mehus (talk) 04:19, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
 * When I tagged for notability in 2013 I didn't propose deletion, probably influenced to some extent by size. But really, if all that we can say about a company is that it was founded, offers products to operate in a market and appoints executives, then that is all appropriate for their website but is far from establishing the claim to notability for an article here. That information in the present article also does not really seem appropriate for merger into Blue Cross Blue Shield Association, hence my preference for simple redirect. AllyD (talk) 07:59, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
 * The standard: "A company, corporation, organization, group, product, or service is notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject."  This has clearly been met just from the sources in the article alone, but as noted above a quick news search shows a large volume of additional coverage that could just as easily build an article to meet the standards.  Subject passes both WP:GNG and WP:NCORP easily.--Paul McDonald (talk) 11:54, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
 * comment on Central 1 there were no independent sources on that article and the only sources were the company website. This company receives plenty of independent third party coverage.--Paul McDonald (talk) 12:01, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep. Clearly meets WP:SIGCOV based on the sources already present in the article. It's a large independent licensee, so it is its own entity separate from the parent organization. It has more than a million people that it insures and a lengthy history. It's a reasonable content fork.4meter4 (talk) 23:11, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
 * You and I agree sometimes, disagree other times. Here we sort of disagree, but not completely since redirect/selective merge is a variation on keep. At any rate, the Kansas City Star articles referenced are all trivial and trite coverage (that is, they relate to product or service announcements and corporate/government partnerships). So, those don't count. Haven't looked through all possible sourcing here, but I trust that the nom and have done their due diligence. Their rationale is sound. Doug Mehus (talk) 23:16, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't consider corporate/government partnerships trivial as they involve public finances and responsibilities. Here's a non-trivial peer reviewed journal article on an innovative way Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Kansas City stopped a doctors' revolt over control of treatment decisions by creating an innovative new model for insurance company/doctor decision making: "Kansas City blues discover talk therapy"; Moskowitz, Daniel; Business and Health, Apr 2000, Vol.18(4), pp.21-22. I found that in under two minutes. I am not so confident the nominators followed WP:BEFORE.4meter4 (talk) 23:30, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Government partnerships can be tricky; if it's just strict churnalism, then it's trivial, but if the company is directly related to the botched rollout of Obamacare, for example, then that might be significant coverage. Your journal article appears, at first blush, like it might qualify. So, WP:SIGCOV may be met here, but I remain uncertain as to whether WP:CORPDEPTH is met. Ping me if further sources turn up so I consider changing/striking the delete part of my vote. Doug Mehus (talk) 23:35, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I have two responses: 1)  That's not trivial coverage, that's significant coverage that you (apparently) just don't have interest in (a variation of WP:IDONTLIKEIT; and 2) If it were WP:TRIVIAL then it's still one of the Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions as "notability fallacy".  The standard is:  "The spirit and the letter of the guideline are concerned with having enough content to write articles from a neutral point of view" and that has been exceeded.--Paul McDonald (talk) 12:36, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete or Redirect/Selective Merge to Blue Cross Blue Shield Association - Concur with nom and . Searching through all 11 pages of Google web search results for "Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Kansas City" revealed only trivial press coverage, mostly in local daily and community newspapers and trade publications—lots of company partnerships, service announcements, executive appointments, churnalism, and directory listings (WP:NOTDIR), nothing which meets WP:SIGCOV. Similar story with Google News search results. Not finding anything that would meet WP:SIGCOV, possibly one source, maybe two, but nothing that passes WP:CORPDEPTH on which to write more than a perpetual stub- or start-class article which negatively affects Wikipedia's reputation and editorial integrity. -DM
 * Merge/Redirect, although whether to a "Member companies of Blue Cross Blue Shield Assocation." as Dmehus suggested, or to the main "Blue Cross Blue Shield Association" article. Same goes for other member companies that don't have separate notability. - ChrisWar666 (talk) 00:01, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment a word of caution: if Wikipedia were run by majority, then the closing decision would be to delete or merge.  However, Consensus is not the same thing as majority.  Wikipedia has a significant history of decisions and as process that we use.  While certainly consensus can change, the place to change long-standing consensus like the general notability guideline is not in this AFD.  The standards have been exceeded, this is not the place to change the standards just to delete an article (no matter how many editors !vote "yes").--Paul McDonald (talk) 12:44, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep. Huge company, has served millions, sources exist, article could be hugely expanded.  All the BC/BS state-level entities have huge history and impact and are notable, i would think. --Doncram (talk) 13:40, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26  (spin me / revolutions) 21:34, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep The Kansas Cities are certainly not some small region with little population. Major company, major presences in the healthcare of Missouri and Kansas, and a thank you to for fixing this article from its COPYVIO state rather than trying a needless TNT maneuver like the nom is trying here.  Nate  • ( chatter ) 04:05, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete or merge: Coverage looks WP:TRIVIAL to me. -- Darth Mike (talk) 14:50, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
 * FYI, you just took a position in a deletion discussion and specifically referenced Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions‎ as the reason.--Paul McDonald (talk) 13:26, 31 October 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep. This is a corp with c. $3 billion in 2018 revenues - if it was freely quoted, it would have a market cap. putting it in touching distance of the S&P500. With 1 million members, at a WP:COMMONSENSE level, it makes no sense to delete this or merge into another article. We clearly have many other standalone BKC WP articles for other states.  A google search provides hundreds of refs to this CORP.  Would a Kansas WP reader expect to find a WP article on this company - of course they would. Britishfinance (talk) 01:59, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment. For example, here is the Wall Street Journal with a full article on BKC's withdrawal from ACA in 2017 |Insurer Exit Leaves 25 Missouri Counties With No ACA Plans for 2018


 * Keep. Clearly meets WP:SIGCOV Wm335td (talk) 22:23, 7 November 2019 (UTC)


 * 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.