Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ocean Medical Center

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 no consensus. Can't close as keep, because no one has shown at least two definitive, independent, in-depth sources that aren't strictly local coverage. Can't close as delete, because no analysis has taken place regarding the added sources. Can't re-list. No consensus. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 15:20, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ocean Medical Center

[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)

Fails WP:NORG. Attempted redirect was reverted by page creator. b uidhe 03:35, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. b uidhe 03:35, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. b uidhe 03:35, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I do not believe that this page fails notability. It is a major medical center in the ocean county area. An admin already made comments in the talk page about how the article is not perfect but it can stay on Wikipedia and improvements can be made. I had this whole discussion already. Just look on the talk page. Andrew nyr (talk) 03:40, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, Deepfriedokra said "it does not meet WP:CORP, so deletionist that I am, I'd be inclined to delete." b uidhe 03:56, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Reply I deferred acting on the WP:G11 tag (i.e., unambiguously promotional. These are phrases of art, and different admins may view ambiguity differently.) as I was unsure that was reasonable, and ExpressoAddict declined. However, I doubt the subject meets WP:CORP or WP:GNG. I just undid the redirect, as that is premature if the AfD running. If the consensus is that it is salvageable or could be salvageable, draftification would be reasonable.-- Deep fried okra 07:02, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A cursory Wikipedia:BEFORE reveals up some RS, making this nomination suspect, since it appears one one carried out. Additionally a newly created article should be given the chance for others to see and make contributions, not be AfD on same day. This topic is of merit and can be easily expanded.Djflem (talk) 21:37, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Please link to the RS. Just WP:SOURCESEXIST is not a convincing rationale. I did find some coverage, but WP:ROUTINE applied. b uidhe 01:21, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — voicing Buidhe. furthermore this is a promotional piece for a non-notable hospital a google search doesn’t show in-depth significant coverage of the said hospital. Fails WP:NORG ultimately. Am I the only one noticing that generally admins are starting to avoid the speedy delete button? In the past the article might have been speedy deleted under G11. Celestina007 (talk) 14:20, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's a 300 bed hospital. Those are large, both physically and financially. Unsurprisingly, they leave a large footprint. I would be amazed if such an organisation could easily hide itself from our gaze. And looking for sources, there they are.Andy Dingley (talk) 16:51, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The sources already here and those identified and available to be added establish the hospital's notability. Alansohn (talk) 17:42, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Lets do an actual analysis of sources. Numbering from this version.

N Routine listing with the address
N Listing by affiliated source
N Hospital website
N WP:ROUTINE, two-paragraph announcement of a merger
N WP:ROUTINE, brief article in a local newspaper of dubious quality. No original reporting involved.
Y This might qualify towards establishing NCORP
N Press release
N No significant coverage, just a USNews listing
N Passing mention of the hospital on a list of hospitals which treat LGBT patients well
N Warmed over press release by leapfrog, announcing an award for this hospital but no significant coverage
N Primary source, hospital employee submitted something to a government commission

There's just not enough here to make NCORP. b uidhe 18:08, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

- Buidhe, many of the sources identified as available have been added to the article to address your concerns. The article was and remains notable. Alansohn (talk) 16:43, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Plenty of sources provided to indicate notability. Tinton5 (talk) 02:46, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 01:19, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:56, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Multiple users have added further sources to the article and I just do not believe that it fails notability. It is a new article and can be approved but the afd tag at the top scares potential editors. Only one user has consistently called for deletion and mutiple others have voted to keep the article. I believe that this article does not qualify for deletion. As djflem stated "Additionally a newly created article should be given the chance for others to see and make contributions, not be AfD on same day." This is just not fair to the wikipedia community. Andrew nyr (talk) 03:49, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry, but what's "not fair to the Wikipedia community" is creating articles without having any evidence at hand that shows notability. All we have is an opinion of what's notable, leaving the hard work for others to try and prove it. Glendoremus (talk) 03:07, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The cited references consistently fail basic criteria for notability: "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". When I search the internet I fail to find anything better. Glendoremus (talk) 02:55, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Reply Since the user above listed out the sources the article has been updated multiple times by different users adding sources and adding information to the article. Andrew nyr (talk) 14:00, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Sources seem be in line with GNG since Wikipedia:HEY. Djflem (talk) 18:54, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I see over 14,000 newspaper.com hits, with clearly substantial coverage in print. BD2412 T 04:06, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Nobody seems to be citing WP:NHOSPITALS. It states "as an absolute minimum" the hospital "has been noticed by two unrelated, independent third-party sources", "at least one source that discusses the organization in-depth", and "at least one source that is outside of the organization's local/service area". Per my research, c. #1 and maybe #2 have been met. Not so sure about the third, however. I'll defer my !vote given I'm not an expert on hospitals. Best, PK650 (talk) 21:56, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- I have added some sources. The two local articles from The Ocean Star (a source not previously cited) are lengthy, and the third, while only a mention, is from Florida Today. BD2412 T 04:32, 31 January 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.