Talk:Assura plc

Notability[edit]

I note improvements have been made recently - but notability remains an issue, and I don't think the changes merited removing this particular tag, so i've retagged.--_nonsense ferret 23:28, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The company used to be a member of the FTSE 250 - the 250 largest companies on the stock exchange - that is why the article was created in the first place. If it was deleted it would be almost unique amongst ex-FTSE 250 companies in not having an article. Does that help? Dormskirk (talk) 23:32, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have now explained the reason for notability in the article. Best wishes. Dormskirk (talk) 23:34, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Having one single independent reference from the Liverpool Echo falls a long way short of WP:CORP --_nonsense ferret 23:36, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have expanded the article and added a few more independent references. OK now? Best wishes. Dormskirk (talk) 23:57, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

My honest instinct is that it seemed to me a bit marginal, particular given the localised and relatively routine nature of the coverage (noting WP:CORPDEPTH), however I've sought advice from a more experienced editor who feels it falls on the side of passing WP:CORP so I am happy for you to remove the tag from the article on that basis. If some significant coverage could have been produced from say the national uk press, I would have been a lot more comfortable with that however. --_nonsense ferret 00:28, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

OK. Thanks. Dormskirk (talk) 21:22, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]