Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Maxim Healthcare Services


 * 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) Armbrust, B.Ed. Let's talk about my edits? 15:04, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Maxim Healthcare Services

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Article recreated after speedy. All but the last paragraph are corporate advertising, and the last paragraph is a blatant copyright violation. Otherwise inadequately sourced article. Ohconfucius ¡digame! 02:29, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep Original deletion was bogus.  Article is very balanced, is not advertising, is properly sourced from multiple places (no blatant copyright violation) & properly includes their recent negative news coverage.  Pryzbilla
 * (Note: User Pryzbilla is the author of the article.)


 * Keep Article clearly meets Wikipedia standards for objectivity and is adequately sourced. - Barry Schwartz — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.108.59.58 (talk • contribs) — 74.108.59.58 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 14:57, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 14:58, 7 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete: The references are the official website, press releases, company overviews, and home pages of other companies. SL93 (talk) 03:22, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep The company turns out to be notable, as in notorious. The company received widespread national coverage because of charges for fraudulent billing resolved by a 2011 settlement. I have added neutral sources to the article about that topic, replacing the self-serving press release that was originally included, and deleted some of the puffery and self-referential sourcing. There was also widespread publicity over charges of mismanaging the care of some girls in Florida, but I did not add that information since I felt it was a relatively trivial isolated incident. Even without it, the company is notable. --MelanieN (talk) 20:53, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep - Per reliable sources currently in the article, including The New York Times, Baltimore Sun and the U.S. Department of Justice News Release. Northamerica1000 (talk) 07:01, 9 January 2012 (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.