Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Apollo Sugar Clinics

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. If anyone wants content briefly to improve Apollo Hospitals I can provide. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 15:03, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Apollo Sugar Clinics (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Promotional article on a non notable chain of specialized clinics, apparently being operated by or in conjunction with a pharmaceutical firm that makes the medicines they dispense. DGG ( talk ) 09:21, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:25, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:26, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: This page should not be deleted as the subject is notable enough and the available citations are from good primary & secondary resources. I would also like to pay attention on the history of the article where you can see clearly a deletion tag was added on 5 June 2018 and i removed promotional content from there & explained why article shouldn't be deleted. Later the user:Onel5969 removed the speedy deletion tag. I request to all the respected editors that kindly consider all resources before put your opinion here.TheGrandSon (talk) 18:57, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Among the promotional content still in the article is a complete list of medical advisory board members, description of companies that supply products it uses, the statement they havea mobile app, and a research section containing 1 only 3 non-peerreviewed abstracts, which are not reliable sources for anything. Essentially all the references are outright press-releases. None of this is the least encyclopedic. DGG ( talk ) 02:13, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge with Apollo Hospitals. It just seems logical to make a separate section in the Apollo Hospitals page for Apollo Sugar Clinics - it would add to the Apollo Hospitals page and function as a decent way to connect the two entities. Where are the refs? (talk) 14:45, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Does not meet new and improved WP:NCORP; promo 'cruft based on WP:SPIP sourcing. I don't see a point of merging promo content on a nn entity, as it would not improve the target article. K.e.coffman (talk) 22:40, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think it would improve the article - the current Apollo Hospitals page is a bit underwhelming, and adding information about a substantial subsidiary would give broader context and improve the sourcing overall.Where are the refs? (talk) 05:26, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• delete - fails NCORP; blatantly promotional. Jytdog (talk) 23:03, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think it would make sense to add it as a subsection to Apollo Hospitals, if it doesn't meet notability on its own, it certainly has plenty of coverage to make a suitable mention on the parent company page.Where are the refs? (talk) 01:35, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Jytdog (talk) 23:04, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• delete. Had I passed along, there would have been a speedy tag on it, the article resembles as advertisement, and is nothing but a promo. 2Joules (talk) 06:59, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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.