Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/W Medical Strategy 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 delete. ST47 (talk) 22:53, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

W Medical Strategy Group

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Article that doesn't exactly meet our notability guidelines for inclusion. Upon search nothing comes up on GNEWS or GBOOKS. Fails WP:NCORP and WP:RS. I previously tagged under G11 but was recreated. Korean language refs are passing mentions. Lapablo (talk) 18:58, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Lapablo (talk) 18:58, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. Lapablo (talk) 18:58, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Lapablo (talk) 18:58, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

Hi Lapablo. I understand your reason for nominating this article for deletion. I would like to address, however, that the company is likely not appearing from GNEWS or GBOOKS because it is mostly covered in Korean news outlets. If you see my references, they're mostly in Korean. They are also legitimate, which you can affirm yourself. To my knowledge, this is permitted as long as the articles can be translated via Google Translate. Could you also share in detail as to how this does not meet notability for companies and organizations? Thanks. User6045 (talk) 19:08, 17 June 2019 (UTC)User6045


 * Comment. The references you provided are not sufficient for a page to meet WP:NCORP because from what i can see in Korean language, there are just passing mentions of the subject. Please read WP:SIGCOV. Lapablo (talk) 19:23, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 19:25, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Korea-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 19:27, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 19:28, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 19:28, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 19:28, 17 June 2019 (UTC)


 * Response. I wouldn't attest to them being just passing mentions as W Medical is the main topic of the source materials I've cited. User6045 (talk) 19:33, 17 June 2019 (UTC)User6045
 * Delete It should be noted (see here) that works for the W Medical Strategy Group and was already kindly asked to refrain from creating the article himself. Add that to the notability concerns, and I believe deletion is the correct option. It is listed at Requested articles/Business and economics/Companies/T-Z so if it's notable enough, it will be recreated by a neutral editor somewhere in the future. Pichpich (talk) 22:05, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Response. While it is recommended to not write an article regarding a topic an editor is affiliated with, there is no rule that states one is simply not allowed for that reason alone. I understand that my article will be under more scrutiny, but it is insufficient to make an argument that this alone is a reason for deletion. Touching upon an earlier comment regarding notability, the articles cited discuss W Medial Strategy and/or its business units as their main topics. They are not passing mentions of the company. User6045 (talk) 13:07, 19 June 2019 (UTC) User6045
 * That's disingenuous. First, let's be clear on that point Conflict of interest states unequivocally that COI editing is strongly discouraged on Wikipedia. It undermines public confidence and risks causing public embarrassment to the individuals and companies being promoted.. Moreover, you were instructed not to start the article and did so nonetheless. Pichpich (talk) 22:06, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
 * The key word is discouraged. I want to ask: who or what instructed me to definitively NOT to start the article? Again, this reason alone is not enough for deletion. Please do not argue that my defense is disingenuous. The decision as to whether or not this article should be deleted should be based on the article itself - the text - NOT on the fact that I am affiliated with the company. I'm not saying this shouldn't be a consideration, but you are arguing this is sufficient enough to prompt deletion. User6045 (talk) 14:43, 20 June 2019 (UTC)User6045
 * Delete Whole sections are sourced to the companies websites see 'New York Health Forum.' EWG is not a reliable source, it is an advocacy group. I do not see any in depth coverage. Another option may be to userfy the article and have it submitted for review. But I think Delete is the way to go. VViking Talk Edits 13:32, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Response May I ask how I can userfy the article and submit it for review? User6045 (talk) 15:44, 21 June 2019 (UTC)User6045
 * Update I have removed the sections on New York Health Forum and Publication (World Asian Medical Journal) due to the lack of credible third-party sources. Would the article as of now be qualified to remain published on Wikipedia? Other recommendations/edits are welcome. User6045 (talk) 18:30, 21 June 2019 (UTC)User6045
 * Comment. I think the references are not sufficient to meet WP:NCORP. --SalmanZ (talk) 22:20, 21 June 2019 (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.