Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/SXC Health Solutions


 * 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   no consensus.  Sandstein  07:40, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

SXC Health Solutions

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Contested proposed deletion. Article is about a behind the scenes business that manages prescription drug benefits for employers. Serious neutrality issues here; according to the article, this business has moved from one success to another.

Business notability is not established by the article's references. Most are to internal sources. Others are to Top 100 lists, directories, employee newsletters, and press release announcements of routine acquisitions. I find similar on Google News, but nothing that suggests that this business has had a significant effect on history, technology, or culture. Closest thing that comes to significant neutral coverage is this top 10 list from a tech stock newsletter. Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 16:25, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions.


 * Delete - I do not feel that notability has been adequately established in the article. ItsZippy (talk) 16:40, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep - As a publicly traded company that has been the subject of significant third party coverage for over a decade, this company easily meets WP:GNG and WP:CORP. The company's stock performance along has been the subject of scores of third party publications. Finding secondary sources for companies like these is not as easy as it is for one that makes durable consumer goods, but in this case there is a significant amount of nontrivial coverage. Tone issues are handled by fixing the article, not deleting it. VQuakr (talk) 16:59, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
 * delete this is blatant self promotion. the sources are not neutral and not serious. one of them is a pdf of the university of toledo's employee benefits newsletter which announcing that they're switching to this company for prescription fulfillment: how could that conceivably be relevant to anything?  none of these sources could be used to rewrite this article to satisfy any of the guidelines it violates. Alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 17:16, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
 * On what basis do you consider the article self promotion? VQuakr (talk) 19:38, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
 * point taken. Alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 20:40, 28 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep - For the same reasons the article was denied a proposed deletion request one year ago when the same user proposed deletion (and the result was keep). The sources aren't intentionally promoting the company, they are not affiliated with the company (some were removed a year ago,).  The pdf shows that the University of Toledo considers the company to be relevant (services are used by notable institutions).  Millions of Americans deal with SXC on a regular basis.  The article continues to get attention (views).  Since the last time it was proposed for deletion (and kept) the company has grown even larger due to another acquisition that gave it a foothold in a whole other market (specialty pharmacy) and added more patients.  The company's services are widely used (a Pharmaceutical Care Management Association study in 2009 said that electronic prescription will make up 75% of all by 2014 compared to 15% in 2006).  Agree with VQuakr that any problems with the company article stem not from SXC's irrelevance but from tone issues.  A lot of Pharmacy Benefit Industry operations happen 'behind the scenes', that doesn't make it insignificant; it is a vital component of the health industry.  Also, it's listed on 2 major indices, the TSX and Nasdaq.Grmike (talk) 19:20, 28 July 2011 (UTC)grmike
 * New source showing notability - The Globe and Mail: Cashing in on the U.S. drug craze Globe and mail calls it "a player to be reckoned with in the U.S. health care market" and considers it "a rags to riches story" (one of the reasons it garnered so much attention a couple years ago).Grmike (talk) 19:42, 28 July 2011 (UTC)grmike
 * Comment. I seldom re-nominate things that have been through full discussions once.  The name did strike me as vaguely familiar when I found it.  For some reason, it did not pick up on the older discussion, and it was not noted on the talk page either that I saw.  If you can point me in its direction I will withdraw this. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 19:46, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I believe it was a PROD, not a deletion discussion. VQuakr (talk) 19:49, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Carry on, then. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 19:58, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
 * what does this mean? edit from the last time you proposed deletion there was a discussion but I'm not sure how to find the archives.Grmike (talk) 20:15, 28 July 2011 (UTC)grmike
 * It means that I indeed proposed the article for deletion under the proposed deletion process. Someone else denied the proposed deletion.  In that case, the next step is to move to articles for deletion, which is what this discussion is. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 20:27, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep per WP:LISTED.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 00:11, 29 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep Look over the information about them at Reuters. A simple click of the Google news archive search at the top of this AFD will show their actions get covered as only a notable company would.  The company makes a billion dollars a year, and gets coverage for its various actions and performance, is obviously notable.   D r e a m Focus  21:45, 3 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Note: The article under discussion here has been rescue flagged by an editor for review by the Article Rescue Squadron.  Yaksar (let's chat) 06:43, 4 August 2011 (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.