Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Western Provident Association

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. Owen× ☎ 13:22, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Western Provident Association

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Article created and continues to be edited by COI editor who removed PROD tag on the basis that "We are in the process of editing this page, but we need the copy to be authorised, which can not be done in the timescale that you have provided, it will be carried out soon,". The organisation lacks "significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject", as a result failing WP:ORGCRIT. AusLondonder (talk) 18:37, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Companies, and United Kingdom. AusLondonder (talk) 18:37, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Health and fitness, Medicine, and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:48, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hey man im josh (talk) 18:42, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I added some references. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 22:23, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:44, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, any coverage here lacks WP:DEPTH.

Allan Nonymous (talk) 18:24, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - not a notable business. Bhivuti45 (talk) 18:48, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:29, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep ~~although this company has not received lengthy coverage, t~~They are well documented to have been a pioneer in private health funding in the UK (one of just three players throughout the 1980s and early to mid 1990's). Even if this were to be seen as failing SIGCOV, I think it should be kept on WP:IAR grounds as a company worth documenting due to its early role in shifting cost burdens to the private sector.
@Eastmain added some cites. I have added several more. The article was in a bit of a sorry state, but I tried to add some context about their role in the move to private and top-up insurance. I also did some section reformatting to make the article less scatterbrained although there's an entire section on WPA Healthcare Practice that is unsourced and I don't have a good way of fixing that right now. Oblivy (talk) 01:07, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As you say, the organisation is lacking "lengthy coverage", not enough to meet WP:ORGCRIT, which requires "significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject." AusLondonder (talk) 15:34, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Then the correct policy to apply would be WP:IAR which says that if a policy interferes with improving or maintaining the encyclopedia it should be ignored. Oblivy (talk) 11:15, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have added another two links (one is just to support existence of WPA Protocol as the link is dead and not archived), and improved a link to an offline source by linking to the PDF. Previously I added an article from the Times which is significant coverage of the company.

I also had a look at the links added by @Eastmain two of which are offline. There's actually quite a lot of sourcing for the article although the offline links make it hard to know how lengthy the treatment is. Oblivy (talk) 13:48, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is a company therefore GNG/WP:NCORP requires at least two deep or significant sources with each source containing "Independent Content" showing in-depth information *on the company*. "Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. I'm unable to identify any references that meet the criteria for establishing notability. Also, IAR isn't a policy that says "Let's keep articles that fail our notability criteria", it says don't let a rule prevent you from improving an article. There's no rule at play here preventing anybody from improving the article or for showing references that shows notability. HighKing⁺⁺ 23:42, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Both @Eastmain and I have been improving the article and with the addition of the Times article I don't think there's a basis to say this fails WP:NCORP. I've modified my vote comment accordingly. As for WP:IAR it's a foundational policy, and appears at the top of every notability PAG. It absolutely says that where the application of those policies and guidelines would interfere with the project they should be ignored.Oblivy (talk) 01:31, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You might be "improving" the article, but the first test is whether the topic is notable. You mention you've added the Times article but that article appears to be entirely based on a company announcement just like the other articles carrying the same corporate story such as "Insurance to Secure New Cancer Drugs" by Rececca Smith which appeared in the Evening Standard on the same date and also the article "INSURANCE THAT OFFERS LIFE-SAVING CANCER COVER" by Liz Philips in the Daily Mail, also on the same date (both articles available in WP Library). Also just to say, IAR along with all the other policies and guidelines are generally transcluded into various pages, not disputing that, but that doesn't give it any special hierachial weighting or put it above other policies. Feel free to correct me if I've misread your position, I accept IAR encourages editors to go ahead and improve articles and to do so even if that means breaking some rules - but are you saying that establishing notability doesn't matter so long as an article is being improved, and because AfD "interferes" with article improvement by proposing to delete an article, the AfD process is trumped by IAR and you can keep any old topic regardless of whether they meet notability guidelines or not? If so, that's a ridiculous proposition. HighKing⁺⁺ 18:10, 12 April 2024 (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.