Deletion of Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Kansas City

Comment: Clearly meets  based on the sources already present in the article. It's a large  independent licensee, so it is its own entity separate from the parent organization. It has more than a million people that it insures and a lengthy history. It's a reasonable content fork
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:SIGCOV)

Comment: or'' '''Redirect'''/'''Selective Merge''' to Blue Cross Blue Shield Association - Concur with nom and {{u|AllyD}}. Searching through all 11 pages of Google web search results for "Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Kansas City" revealed only trivial press coverage, mostly in local daily and community newspapers and trade publications—lots of company partnerships, service announcements, executive appointments, Churnalism|churnalism, and directory listings (), nothing which meets . Similar story with Google News search results. Not finding anything that would meet , possibly one source, maybe two, but nothing that passes  on which to write more than a ermastub|perpetual stub- or start-class article which negatively affects Wikipedia's reputation and editorial integrity. -DM
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOTDIR||WP:SIGCOV||WP:SIGCOV||WP:CORPDEPTH||WP:P)

Comment: Clearly meets 
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:SIGCOV)

Comment: I tagged the original version of the present article with a Notability query in 2013 and more recently gave an assessment of its more recent text at :Talk:Blue_Cross_and_Blue_Shield_of_Kansas_City#Notability_query, where I indicated my view that the current article references fell under the  "Examples of trivial coverage". For this AfD I have taken a wider look for anything which might indicate notability for the company: again, I am seeing the routine coverage typical of a company going about its business, but nothing to satisfy 
Stance: merge
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (:WP:ORGCRIT||:WP:NCORP)