Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/West Side Community Health Services
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:43, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- West Side Community Health Services (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
No indication that this organization meets notability requirements. No specific claim of notability. No third party sources are provided to support notability. -- Mufka (u) (t) (c) 00:42, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2012 April 11. Snotbot t • c » 00:57, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as per nom. Tom Reedy (talk) 03:57, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:48, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:48, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Minnesota-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:49, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - I think I've heard of this organization, although I can't say why. Regardless of my recollections, I found some third-party sources and additional content, and I've added to the article. I found a lot more sources that were behind a paywall. I believe it passes the WP:GNG. An additional claim to notability is that it's the largest community clinic organization in the state -- and it has existed for 43 years. --Orlady (talk) 04:30, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep There's plenty of independent coverage available. Orlady added some independent references, and I added several more.--MelanieN (talk) 14:44, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Largely per Orlady. The additional claim of notability Orlady mentions is probably sufficient. Lord Roem (talk) 17:22, 18 April 2012 (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.