Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PruHealth


 * 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 of the debate was No consensus. Oldelpaso 08:42, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

PruHealth
Appears to be non-notable as per WP:CORP. I believe this is advert. Pascal.Tesson 06:29, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:CORP and WP:WWIN... was created by User:Robwingfield who states: "I am a systems designer at Prudential." -Medtopic 06:50, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete, fails WP:CORP and WP:VAIN. --Coredesat 07:02, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep, meets WP:CORP as PruHealth is frequently in the UK media, e.g. . Doesn't fall foul of WP:WWIN as the article is objective and doesn't assert any opinions about the products or company.  WP:VAIN is irrelevant - the article is not about myself, it's about a joint venture of my current employer that didn't already have an article.  Robwingfield (talk) 08:52, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment: I was referring to WP:AUTO, not WP:VAIN. Medtopic 17:08, 26 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep Prudential are well-known in the UK, and this joint venture has a media profile there too. Article could use some WP:V to reflect this though, and a glance at WP:STYLE too. --DaveG12345 10:01, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Merge with Prudential doktorb | words 12:00, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep Though notability isn't inherited, I have to agree that this is notable Computerjoe 's talk 13:10, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete - smacks of advertorial to me Brookie :) - a will o' the wisp ! (Whisper...) 15:51, 27 June 2006 (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.