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. Vanamonde93 (talk) 22:09, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Indira IVF (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)

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

Fails WP:NCORP. Routine corp news or WP:NEWSORGINDIA type of sources are not enough to pass WP:CORPDEPTH. Gheus (talk) 18:31, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep – Indira IVF meets WP:NCORP as a leading fertility clinic network in India with 150+ centers, significant media coverage (Economic Times, Livemint, VCCircle, Financial Express), and a $1.1 billion private equity acquisition (BPEA EQT). Its IPO plans, industry leadership, and national healthcare impact establish WP:CORPDEPTH. Coverage goes beyond routine news, highlighting business growth, societal influence, and medical advancements. MH-wiki2025 (talk) 19:01, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:ORGTRIV, routine funding rounds, M&As are not helpful. Gheus (talk) 19:05, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Gheus Indira IVF's extensive coverage across business, healthcare, and societal impact meets WP:NCORP and WP:CORPDEPTH, making WP:ORGTRIV concerns inapplicable. The $1.1B BPEA EQT acquisition, IPO plans, and national healthcare influence demonstrate sustained significance beyond routine corporate events MH-wiki2025 (talk) 11:44, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@MH-wiki2025:, this is the same argument in other deletion discussions of pages you created. I will again ask the same question....can you point out the specific references that meet WP:ORGCRIT?--CNMall41 (talk) 19:21, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Indira IVF meets WP:ORGCRIT through significant independent coverage beyond routine business news.

Key sources include The Economic Times, Livemint, Financial Express, and VCCircle, covering its $1.1 billion acquisition (BPEA EQT), IPO plans, and national healthcare impact. With 150+ centers, it is India’s largest IVF chain, demonstrating long-term industry influence. These factors establish WP:CORPDEPTH, making the subject notable per Wikipedia’s standards. MH-wiki2025 (talk) 11:28, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Livemint piece is Churnalism Graywalls (talk) 00:54, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Health and fitness, Companies, and Rajasthan. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:30, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Unfortunately, being mentioned in sources such as The Economic Times does not mean something is notable. As this is a company, it must have sources meeting WP:ORGCRIT, and more specifically WP:CORPDEPTH. Yes, there are a lot of mentions and routine announcements, but nothing that would be considered significant coverage. --CNMall41 (talk) 04:33, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  @CNMall41 WP:ORGCRIT and WP:CORPDEPTH emphasize independent, in-depth coverage, not just arbitrary dismissal based on the type of subject. The presence of multiple mentions in reputable sources like The Economic Times suggests relevance, and a deeper evaluation is needed rather than a broad rejection. A more objective review of the sources, rather than assuming all are routine announcements, would be appropriate. MH-wiki2025 (talk) 12:01, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Stop making insinuations that a WP:BEFORE was not done correctly. It was. What I believe is your misinterpretation of CORPDEPTH. "Multiple mentions" does not equal in-depth. --CNMall41 (talk) 15:28, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - I agree with explanation of CNMall41 (talk) . Most of the sources are in the form of either press releases or passing mentions. Neutrality of given sources are questionable. Article lacks independent in depth coverage which can justify notability. Rahmatula786 (talk) 06:54, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  @Rahmatula786Sources cited include in-depth coverage from The Economic Times, Bloomberg, and Fortune India, not mere press releases. Neutrality of reputable financial publications is not questionable. Independent, detailed coverage exists, fulfilling notability requirements. MH-wiki2025 (talk) 12:04, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - As an Editor, I always type delete if it is corporate article, The first thing that comes to my mind is, it is paid or they are doing marketing. while I feel happy about movies, locations even some war articles. Only corporate articles i get the strong feel to delete them . So, delete it. - Herodyswaroop (talk) 10:38, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  @Herodyswaroop Your personal bias against corporate articles contradicts Wikipedia's core principles of neutrality and notability-based evaluation. Decisions should be based on WP:ORGCRIT and WP:CORPDEPTH, not personal preferences. If you have policy-based reasons for deletion, please provide them—otherwise, your vote lacks validity. MH-wiki2025 (talk) 11:57, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• @Herodyswaroop: I'm not sure if you're joking or not but if you're telling the truth that sort of behavior would get you banned from AfD. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:09, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Update to my Keep vote: I’ve revised the article with fresh evidence, including the 11 February 2025 IPO filing (NDTV Profit), reinforcing Indira IVF’s ongoing notability per WP:NCORP. Specific sources meeting WP:ORGCRIT and WP:CORPDEPTH include:

• Bloomberg News (31 Jan 2023): Analyzes the US$1 billion valuation with market context—not a routine announcement.^[1]
• Economic Times (28 Jul 2023): Details the US$1.1 billion BPEA EQT acquisition, a landmark healthcare deal with economic impact.^[2]
• NDTV Profit (11 Feb 2025): Covers the latest IPO filing, showing sustained significance beyond WP:ORGTRIV.^[3]
• Economic Times (21 Jul 2024): Ties Indira IVF to India’s infertility crisis, adding societal depth.^[4]

@CNMall41: These aren’t “routine mentions” but in-depth reports on valuation, a major deal, and healthcare impact—please clarify which you find lacking and why “multiple mentions” overrides this depth.

@Rahmatula786: Bloomberg and NDTV Profit are independent, not press releases, with neutrality upheld by reputable outlets.

@Gheus: The updated article shows coverage spanning finance, healthcare, and policy (ETHealth2022), exceeding routine news.

With 150+ centres (VCCircle) and scrutiny (New Indian Express), it meets WP:GNG and WP:NCORP. MH-wiki2025 (talk) 21 March 2025 (UTC)

Additional coverage strengthens notability: Times of India (17 Dec 2023) details India’s first infertility insurance plan, a pioneering move;^[1] Moneycontrol (28 Dec 2023) covers plans for 25 mother-and-child centres, expanding healthcare scope;^[2] The Hindu BusinessLine (8 Jan 2025) reports Nepal entry, showing global reach.^[3] With Business Standard’s ₹6,500 cr IPO (11 Feb 2025),^[4] this exceeds WP:ORGTRIV per WP:CORPDEPTH. MH-wiki2025 (talk) 22 March 2025 (UTC)

Delete The source name looks significant, but when you look in them, it's mostly churnalism/press release derived. Graywalls (talk) 22:50, 22 March 2025 (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.