Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Summit Medical Group


 * 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. With n o consensus whether the company is notable or not, the article is kept by default. The concerns related to spammy tone seem to have been addressed.  Sandstein  07:31, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Summit Medical Group

 * – ( View AfD View log )


 * Delete &minus; As the article stands, it reads like an advert. It is just like a prospectus. It tells us what its mission statement it, who its financial partners are, how many doctors it has, how many patients, how much it earns, etc. The article was previously speedy deleted per WP:CSD. As the article stands, it relies upon self-published sourced. — Fly by Night  ( talk )  00:23, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions.  — • Gene93k (talk) 00:40, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions.  — • Gene93k (talk) 00:40, 16 July 2011 (UTC)


 * I am the original author of the article. I tried to remove as much of the content about mission statements, etc. as seemed reasonable. I think the size, history, and revenue of Summit Medical Group are relevant facts, however. They seem to be included in other articles about companies. But I am new to writing Wikipedia content. I would be glad to make revisions as suggested/requested by the community. NJmeditor (talk) 13:55, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, history, size, and revenue are exactly the sorts of information that we expect to be in any article about any company, from Apple, Inc. on down to a little restaurant. A properly written article should also include information about ownership, products, facilities, and anything that is unusual about them, like their flu vaccine research and awards received.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:57, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep. Article seems well sourced, however it needs an overhaul. Grammar, formatting, categories, possibly expansion, maybe not, but it still needs some work. I am willing to help contribute. Tinton5 (talk) 17:13, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete Changing to Weak delete, see below. Non-notable - to my surprise. It seems that a practice this huge ought to meet Wikipedia's criteria for notability, but I did quite a thorough search at Google News and found nothing but passing mentions. The only independent sources cited at the article are all from NJBIZ, and the citations from that source don't add up to much, or don't support the claims in the article. For example the article says the company earned the NJBIZ 2010 Corporate Citizen of the Year Award, but the cited article only says they were a finalist for that award. To NJmeditor, the nominator did not do a good job of explaining what the problem is with the article, but it's not really about the way the article is written; that can be fixed. The problem is that Wikipedia has criteria defining what kind of subjects can be covered here, and one of the criteria is that the subject has to be notable, which is defined as having received significant coverage by multiple independent reliable sources. Specific criteria for companies are found at WP:COMPANY. That coverage is what I was searching for, and I couldn't find it. If the group has not received significant news coverage, then it does not qualify for an article here. --MelanieN (talk) 17:21, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
 * MelanieN thanks for clarifying that. I agree that it should be notable (one of NJ's largest, and one of the first to go down the path of having multi-specialty services in one group). I will see if I can find more sources so that I can do a better job of demonstrating its notability. NJmeditor (talk) 13:49, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete it's an advertise article,... sorry,...  --Cpant23 (talk) 01:32, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Additional sources added (New York Times, New Jersey Jewish News). NJmeditor (talk) 13:20, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Good work! The New York Times article definitely helps. Let me see if I can find anything else. --MelanieN (talk) 15:37, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
 * There are frequent mentions in the New York Times; most are trivial but this one contains an extensive quote from the group's representative. IMO we are tantalizingly close to proving notability for this practice. Google News lists an article in the Wall Street Journal describing it as "New Jersey's largest independently operated multispecialty medical group", but the link is dead. That article, if readable, could provide the final push to determine notability. --MelanieN (talk) 15:50, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I was able to find the Wall Street Journal reference duplicated in Healthcare Finance News, with a working link. NJmeditor (talk) 17:51, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Bummer - turns out it's a press release. As such it is not considered to be an independent, reliable source. --MelanieN (talk) 23:59, 18 July 2011 (UTC)


 * The article now includes references to The New York Times, The Star-Ledger, The Independent Press (Union, Morris and Essex County NJ), New Jersey Jewish News, and a variety of medical trade publications. I hope that these references illustrate the notability of the article topic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by NJmeditor (talk • contribs) 14:29, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I admire your efforts but we still don't seem to be getting the coverage we need, at least in my opinion. (Others may disagree.) The Star-Ledger item gives the group a bare passing mention - and seems to say that the group was just formed within the past year in response to federal legislation, which I don't think is the case. The two Independent Press items read like press releases although they don't say they are. The New Jersey Jewish News is a dead link. We are left with the one NYT reference plus some trade journals. --MelanieN (talk) 23:59, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
 * MelanieN Thanks for all your input and attention. I fixed the NJ Jewish News link. I personally would disagree that the trade journals are not relevant for establishing notability. They are independent, verifiable, and have strong editorial policies. I've looked at the entries for several other medical institutions and it looks like they are not held to the same scrutiny or standard. Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center--only three references; Mountainside Hospital--trivial or self-published references only; Bayonne Medical Center--just a stub, Clara Maass Medical Center--passing or self-published references only. Summit Medical Group, because of its verifiable size and the referenced areas where it has innovated in care management, does not seem to fall under "run of the mill" guidelines either Run-of-the-mill. Additional notable aspects have been cited in books/print-only sources, and I'm working on getting those together to establish notability further. I'm still hopeful that the article will be retained! NJmeditor (talk) 10:22, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Have you been directly searching local news sources? Google News doesn't index everything, and it's pretty typical for a large employer to have feature-length news articles in their hometown article.  Sources do not have to be available free or online.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:57, 20 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep I see enough sources to make me believe that it meets the (IMO rather low) notability standard set by WP:COMPANY. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:57, 20 July 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.