Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Allity

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 keep. (non-admin closure) Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 04:02, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Allity

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

Wikipedia is supposed to be a summary of what third-party sources say. This article uses no citations and is a summary of self-published promotional information about this organization.

For this article to be kept, general notability guidelines must be met by identifying 2 or more reliable sources which discuss this organization. Two sources featuring this organization as the subject have not yet been identified. Blue Rasberry (talk) 15:27, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I think there are enough reliable secondary sources listed on this page as references already. Maybe the page needs to be expanded further. The Australian Financial Review reports that they are about to become the largest private owner of aged care homes in Australia. http://www.afr.com/street-talk/aged-care-operator-allity-ahead-of-estia-bupa-in-race-for-croft-portfolio-20160522-gp18kr Seems like a notable Australian entity. MarekJG (talk) 01:13, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:47, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:47, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:47, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Stay Hi. Aged care is a major challenge and a significant policy area in Australia. The growing of importance of aged care and specifically residential aged care is widely acknowledged and is indicated by CEPAR, which is funded by the Australian Government through Australian Research Council in their fact sheet: http://www.cepar.edu.au/media/101879/cepar_aged_care_fact_sheet_low.pdf

These articles discuss the organisation, Allity and are from independent and reliable sources, specifically the Financial Review, The Australian, Australian Ageing Agenda and the Sydney Morning Herald: http://www.afr.com/street-talk/aged-care-operator-allity-ahead-of-estia-bupa-in-race-for-croft-portfolio-20160522-gp18kr http://www.theaustralian.com.au/business/property/eyes-on-allity-after-japara-puts-spring-in-step-of-agecare-sector/story-fnko7zi0-1226889462044 http://www.australianageingagenda.com.au/2016/03/23/growth-profit-aged-care-continues-2015-acar/ http://www.smh.com.au/business/property/age-of-change-as-big-players-expand-in-aged-care-sector-20150623-ghvf36.html

As indicated in the above articles the organisation is a major and growing residential aged care provider in Australia. This can also be seen by looking at the service list put together by the Federal Department of Health: https://agedcare.health.gov.au/ageing-and-aged-care-overview/about-aged-care/aged-care-service-list-australia

There are other Wiki articles about providers of residential aged care such as Baptcare, Bupa and Catholic Health Care.

Therefore I think the article should stay.

PinkAechFas (talk) 10:52, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep These sources from PinkAechFas can make an article that technically meets inclusion criteria, and which is notable enough, even if not radically exciting intellectually. Multiple sources attest to this segment of the Australian elderly care sector being in disruptive evolution, with the subject of this article being one of 6 to 10 larger entities which are displacing smaller organizations. The AfD pivot is that WP:RS do exist. FeatherPluma (talk) 01:58, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 22:29, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 18:53, 6 August 2016 (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.