Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Interhealth Canada


 * 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. (non-admin closure) buffbills7701 17:24, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Interhealth Canada

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Article fails to establish notability for its subject per WP:GNG and WP:CORP. References seem to be more about other issues and coverage of the subject appears trivial. Previously tagged PROD with ref improve and notability tags. Article creator subsequently removed PROD and all maintenance tags. Article appears to run afoul of WP:AGENDA. See the creator's comments on the talk page. Ad Orientem (talk) 18:29, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

I think these insinuations are both untrue and insulting. The activities of this company have clearly been controversial in at least 3 countries, and have been discussed in the Turks and Caicos House of Assembly. They have been subject to scientific analysis in the British Medical Journal. "Notability is a property of a subject and not of a Wikipedia article." Rathfelder (talk) 19:02, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

They are also the subject of a parliamentary enquiry in the UK.Rathfelder (talk) 10:38, 3 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep - Rathfelder has now added quite a lot of meat to this article and is now well referenced and IMO demonstrates article's notability.--Penbat (talk) 12:28, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:20, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:20, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:20, 4 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep Based on the current state of the article, it is clearly notable (though certainly requires a lot of cleanup). Wieno (talk) 04:42, 9 February 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.