Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/AdventHealth Shawnee Mission

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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 21:42, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

AdventHealth Shawnee Mission

[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)

Trivial local hospital. The two sources in the article aren't good and I'm not finding anything else online that passes notability and that would meet the standards of WP:GNG or WP:NCORP. I'd be fine with forwarding it to List of Seventh-day Adventist hospitals. That seems to be what was done in other cases. Adamant1 (talk) 11:05, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 11:40, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 11:40, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - at over 500 beds, this would be considered notable by the consensus by its size. Bearian (talk) 00:44, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Bearian: I wasn't aware of the number of beds rule. Do you have a link to where it's discussed? Because I'd be interested to read about it. Since I've been involved in a fair number of AfDs involving hospitals and I haven't seen it mentioned. Also, do you happen to know how it works in combination with WP:ORG? According to Wikiproject Hospitals "Hospitals, clinics, and related organizations must comply with the WP:ORG notability standard." So it doesn't sound like this hospital would be notable based solely on the number of beds it has. --Adamant1 (talk) 05:44, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 19:45, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kansas-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 20:25, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep not sure how this would be considered a "trivial local" hospital, based on its size I would consider it at least a regional. Seems to pass WP:GNG based on a simple web search.--Paul McDonald (talk) 23:32, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Can you provide the non-trivial in-depth secondary reliable sources that you were able to find doing a "simple web search" or should we just take your word for it that they exist? --Adamant1 (talk) 09:34, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Just click on the news link above. Please complete the steps outlined in WP:BEFORE when nominating an article for deletion. in this case, part D applies: "D. Search for additional sources, if the main concern is notability." I agree the article could be improved, but AFD is not cleanup.--Paul McDonald (talk) 15:48, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I did. All the sources were trivial and don't establish notability. Your the one saying they aren't so its on you to prove it. Putting your unwillingness to provide the sources your claiming exist on me not doing a before is kinda BS though. Either provide them or don't make false claims about notability next time. You should retract your vote to if your not going to.

Adamant1 (talk) 15:57, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Well, "Liar, Liar, Pants On Fire" isn't really an argument. For clarity, here's a sample from the hundreds of articles in the search: AdventHealth Shawnee Mission makes leadership changes, names Michael Knecht new president (Shawnee Mission Post); AdventHealth Shawnee Mission holds 'Heroes Drive-In' (KSHB-TV_); 14 Leap Day babies born at AdventHealth Shawnee Mission (KSHB-TV); AdventHealth announces KC-area leadership changes as growth picks up (Kansas City Business Journal); 2019 Top Real Estate Deals: AdventHealth's plans for Lenexa City Center (Kansas City Business Journal); Cover Story: The advent of a new health power (Kansas City Business Journal). The sheer volume of coverage overwhelms WP:GNG.--Paul McDonald (talk) 19:32, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't calling you a lier. Providing the sources your basing your vote on is just part of the process. Since the notability criteria isn't about just "sources." Going off the ones you provided its a good thing I asked to. Since all of them are extremely trivial coverage of topics that could apply to any hospital and don't pass WP:NCORP. Especially the ones from local news sources. Which I think is all of them. There's nothing notable about anything mentioned in any of those articles. You could find local news coverage of any hospital out there for the same things. Adamant1 (talk) 22:32, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

First: Feature articles are not WP:TRIVIAL coverage. Second: many of the articles are regional news sources. But even if they were local, there is no "exclusion" for local coverage in the general notability guideline. Third: There is more than enough information from the third party reliable sources to create the article because the topic "has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" and therefore absolutely meets the Wikipedia definition of "notability." Fourth: the primary criteria at WP:NCORP is met "A company, corporation, organization, group, product, or service is notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject." Summary: it's clear that we have different interpretations of what constitutes issues like "notability" and "trivial" and such. I won't continue this dance and leave it to the AFD closer to sort out. If anyone has in questions, feel free to ping me.--Paul McDonald (talk) 05:19, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Paulmcdonald:What article was a "feature article" and what does that have to do with anything? Because I don't see anything in WP:GNG about "feature articles" automatically getting a pass on it. While I agree that WP:GNG doesn't explicitly exclude local coverage, WP:AUD says "media of limited interest and circulation, is not an indication of notability; at least one regional, statewide, provincial, national, or international source is necessary." All of the sources you provided are confined to Kansas City and I wouldn't consider that a "region" in relation to the guidelines. Anymore then I would for any cities local newspaper to be.

For instance the first sources top story is on a community (their words) bookstore re-opening. I wouldn't call that a "regional" story. Nor would I consider said bookstore notable now just because there was a story about it in that news source. The paper would at least have to be for something like the Kansas City metropolitan area to qualify as "regional." Also see Wikipedia's guideline on audience and WP:NOTNEWS. Stories by local news outlets are by their nature news and are meant for a local (not general) audience. No one reading Wikipedia cares that Kansas City's community bookstore is re-opening.

Re WP:NCORP being met, I 100% agree that WP:NCORP should be the standard. It specifically says trivial coverage includes "hiring, promotion, or departure of personnel" and the first source you provided is called "AdventHealth Shawnee Mission makes leadership changes, names Michael Knecht new president." The other sources are exactly the same. If we are going off WP:NCORP like your saying we should. then follow your own standard by considering the article about them hiring a new president trivial since it's what WP:NCORP considers a trivial topic. --Adamant1 (talk) 06:01, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

These comments have gone past simple discussion and have become downright disruptive. A cover story is not "trivial". Cover Story: The advent of a new health power (Kansas City Business Journal). I don't know if you just failed to read this one and/or the hundreds of articles, if you are being obstinate, if you don't understand them, or if you really believe that a cover story is only a "trivial mention" --and I don't care, because the outcome is the same for all four. The outcome is that someone else will come by to close this discussion and make their own judgment. I believe that person will hold the position of in-depth cover stories are not "trivial". I now modify my statement: if anyone else has a question feel free to ping me.--Paul McDonald (talk) 15:16, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The problem with you is that your ignoring the topic of the article. The fact that it's a cover story doesn't matter. You can ignore the triviality of the topic and that WP:NCORP specifically calls it trivial all you want, but there isn't a "cover story" clause to the notability guidelines anywhere. Which is why you ignored me when I asked you to provide a link to one. What's disruptive is you posting trivial, non-notable sources and then repeatedly obfuscating that they are. At the same time your disingenuously rattling on about WP:NCORP while ignoring it when it doesn't suit you. If you hadn't of done any of that this conversation wouldn't have even been a thing. It's totally on you that it was. --Adamant1 (talk) 15:58, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Bearian and Paulmcdonald. Jweiss11 (talk) 02:42, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Jweiss11: Hey any chance you could do me a favor and point me to where the number of beds matters to notability if you happen to know it was discussed? Because it's not mentioned anywhere on the Wikiproject Hospitals page that I can find and no one has provided a source for it when I've asked where it comes from. Thanks. Adamant1 (talk) 07:18, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I argued against keeping a smaller hospital at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Abdali_Medical_Center_(2nd_nomination), but I was out-argued. The consensus that I see is that hospitals of much less than 200 beds are probably not notable, but one twice that size would be. This debate is only in the past nine months, and I doubt that consensus has changed since then. I would not say there is s bright-line test based solely on the size of hospitals, but I do say that we need to be somewhat consistent. Bearian (talk) 03:24, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I think we need some perspective here. The entire state of Kansas has less than 3 million people, which would put coverage of any history/event/institution in one of its areas, less than news about, say Austin, Texas. Break it down by one area, and the coverage gets even less. But AdventHealth Shawnee Mission has gotten a lot of news coverage during the Coronavirus pandemic. It might be local coverage, but AdventHealth has been a big player in the pandemic in Kansas. The articles could be better, should be more sourced and up to date. But lousy sourcing and incomplete work is not a requisite for deleting articles. And now we have all these articles about AdventHealth and and other Adventist associations at AFD, not just in Kansas. Imperfection is not a reason to delete. — Maile (talk) 20:34, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Lousy sources is exactly the reason to do an AfD. That's the whole point in them in the first place. So I have zero clue what your talking about. Also, every local hospital in America is getting local news coverage for the Chronovirus pandemic. Including my small town local hospital. It's not a justification for having on article on it though, because Wikipedia isn't a news source and if what your siting applies to everyone it negates the notability of it. Also, the fact that Adventist hospitals are coming up in AfDs should be on the people who created the articles when the subjects weren't notable, not on the people doing the AfDs. There's no rule that if you do an AfD for multiple articles having to do with the same subject it makes them not legitimate somehow and it's totally BS to frame it like there is. You can't claim the article should be kept "because other AfDs." --Adamant1 (talk) 03:39, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Many references have been provided above, particularly by Paulmcdonald – the Kansas City Business Journal is SIGCOV Cover Story: The advent of a new health power. The OP needs to listen to what editors respond with at an AfD rather than trying to disprove what is becoming increasingly obvious; otherwise, the process becomes less useful. Britishfinance (talk) 18:57, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'd love for you to point out where I wasn't listening. Maybe next time you vote leave the personal attack out of it. --Adamant1 (talk) 19:26, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Adamant1, my intention was not to make a PA but to give you advice on AfD (of which I have a lot of experience, and made many such mistakes). There are many (many) articles in WP that need to through AfD (even if they don't end up getting deleted). The process works efficiently when people listen to each other's !votes and adjust accordingly. You are not listening to several strong arguments above – both the 500-bed and the sources provided. It is a concern for your time and the time of others. Hope you take it in that spirit. Britishfinance (talk) 20:23, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've asked for a source to the 500 bed thing a couple of times, mostly because I'm interested in reading about it. It doesn't have anything to do with not listening though. I'm just interested in policy. Despite your claim, I actually have listened because I'm not opening AfDs for hosptials over 500 beds anymore. Even if no one is willing to provide a source for the rule. No offensive, but if anything your the one wasting our time by posting clearly untrue messages that then need to be disputed. Adamant1 (talk) 20:42, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Bearian's explanation of consensus on hospital size, and Paul's "new health power" coverage. -- Toughpigs (talk) 19:45, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Toughpigs: Any chance you can point to where the 500 bed thing is discussed? Because I can't find anything about it and people who bring it up can't point to anywhere that talks about it either. At this point I doubt there even is consensus about it. Adamant1 (talk) 20:00, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Snow Keep WP:SNOW I feel bad for my WP:PILEON. Some good work by Britishfinance. Lightburst (talk) 20:05, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No reason to feel bad about it. I wasn't aware of the whole "500 bed rule" thing when I opened the AfD. Although I doubt it's even a thing, the important thing is that people are voting like it is. --Adamant1 (talk) 20:09, 19 July 2020 (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.