Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Five Star Urgent Care


 * 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. j⚛e deckertalk 01:05, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Five Star Urgent Care

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Article created by WP:SPA and appears to function as WP:ADVERT and WP:PROMO. &mdash; Cirt (talk) 06:05, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. &mdash; Cirt (talk) 06:07, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions.  Jinkinson   talk to me  12:00, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions.  Jinkinson   talk to me  12:00, 28 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete The sources all seem to be press releases and the article does not attempt to establish any notability. Peter.C  •  talk  •  contribs  13:29, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep I found several non-press release sources:    Though these are all local newspapers, they are still reliable and so this seems to be enough to meet WP:CORP.  Jinkinson   talk to me  14:33, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Weak Delete All those cites seem to be either "it exists" or "it's opening". But WP:CORP says existence does NOT equal notability; the company must be shown to have "significant or demonstrable effects on culture, society..." To that end, there is an article that says that the urgent care centers have or will lessen the load at local emergency rooms. Is that enough? EBY (talk) 16:21, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep. Yeah, it isn't a high profile organization.  But I believe anything we can write a sentence with two GNG-suitable sources for is worth keeping.  I mean, why not have an article, at least a little one, for something like this?  I should add that  not only showed that there were multiple independent sources, but his third source mentioned a unique feature - listing current wait times for all their locations on their home page - which actually does have a significant effect on society.  But that's an alternate criterion; the primary GNG is enough. Wnt (talk) 03:30, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 23:21, 4 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep as meeting WP:GNG. VMS Mosaic (talk) 05:52, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep meets WP:GNG. --I am One of Many (talk) 07:38, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep per . This meets the bar. — m a k o ๛  15:58, 11 November 2014 (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.