Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Community Behavioral Health

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 after extended time for discussion. I read the comment by User:Anthologetes that "the cumulative data presented still potentially warrants inclusion" as an opinion in favor of keeping based on coverage in a sufficiently large region. Doncram's suggestion of "merging coverage of this with wider community mental/behavioral health system coverage" is also a good direction to consider with respect to the future of this information. bd2412 T 05:13, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Community Behavioral Health[edit]

[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)

non-notable organization. Praxidicae (talk) 21:24, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:33, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:33, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Though I would point out that the organization is frequently covered in the local press, it is just that, local, which is apparently enough to fail notability here. An argument could perhaps be made that some sources that talk about it—specifically Pew Trusts—satisfy the criterion of being "regional" due to their influence, even while based in Philly (and Philadelphia is both a city and county, the latter of which might well suffice as a "region," depending on the definition you use). They were, as Medicaid payer and RTF-credentialer, involved in the Wordsworth death, which did receive national coverage, but they are not mentioned by name outside of court or city council proceedings. I would argue there isn't really dependent coverage in the article, if that's a concern: two of the citations to the org are for foundation year and CEO retirement, and the third just offers their most up-to-date figures. So tl;dr I understand the argument that it fails notability, but I think the cumulative data presented still potentially warrants inclusion. (n.b. I created the article) anthologetes ^{(talk • contribs)} 22:46, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Those are almost exclusively passing mentions, press releases and business announcements. There's little to no in depth coverage. Praxidicae (talk) 22:54, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- RoySmith (talk) 01:50, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Editors interested in the topic should consider merging coverage of this with wider community mental/behavioral health system coverage, but actually there is plenty about this specific program on its own. And obviously this should be moved to "Community Behavioral Health (Philadelphia)" or similar, because the generic-type name is obviously too broad and readers would not expect the article to be just about Philadelphia (title change to be decided at its Talk page, perhaps by a wp:RM). This is not a minor local mental health organization, it is a big one in a big city, and there will exist a lot of coverage about it, whether or not much has been found and deemed major enough. One or more Philadelphia newspapers are major regional papers, and are not to be dismissed as merely local, by the way. There was a past AFD, ~~which I can't find right away~~ Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Visiting Nurse Service of New York, about a New York City health provider, where further digging turned up coverage of its long history, including published general medical research by its doctors and others, in part about its own clients/patients, and that AFD closed "Keep". More could be turned up specific to the Philadelphia program, too, I expect.

Hmm, yes, indeed that is true. There are 2,310 academic article hits in Google Scholar search on "Community Behavioral Health", mostly not about the Philadelphia program, but refining that to " "Community Behavioral Health" Philadelphia " indeed yields plenty of very relevant sources, including about history of being founded in 1997 and some major stuff in 2007. In collapsed section here, i copy/paste in some of that... look and see that this topic is obviously notable:

First few search results on "Community Behavioral Health" + Philadelphia

Public-academic partnerships: The Beck initiative: A partnership to implement cognitive therapy in a community behavioral health system SW Stirman, R Buchhofer, JB McLaulin… - Psychiatric …, 2009 - Am Psychiatric Assoc Sign In. Username. Forgot Username? Password. Forgot password? Keep me signed in …

 Cited by 48 Related articles All 8 versions

[HTML] nih.gov Implementation of transdiagnostic cognitive therapy in community behavioral health: The Beck Community Initiative. TA Creed, SA Frankel, RE German… - Journal of consulting …, 2016 - psycnet.apa.org … policymakers have issued mandates, provided incentives, and devoted billions of dollars to bring EBPs to community behavioral health (CBH) in … Beginning in 2007, the Philadelphia Department of Behavioral Health and Intellectual disAbility Services (DBHIDS), a large publicly …

 Cited by 37 Related articles All 6 versions

[HTML] biomedcentral.com [HTML] Policy to implementation: evidence-based practice in community mental health–study protocol RS Beidas, G Aarons, F Barg… - …, 2013 - implementationscience … … and children. The behavioral health care of Medicaid-enrolled individuals with Philadelphia is managed through Community Behavioral Health (CBH), a quasi-governmental administrative service organization. Since 2007, DBHIDS …

 Cited by 65 Related articles All 19 versions

Recovery-focused behavioral health system transformation: A framework for change and lessons learned from Philadelphia I Achara-Abrahams, AC Evans, JK King - Addiction Recovery …, 2010 - Springer … Philadelphia's visionary leadership continued with the development of Community Behavioral Health (CBH) in 1997, which brought the formerly separate funding streams for mental health and addiction treatment together under one plan and set the stage for the integration of …

 Cited by 28 Related articles All 7 versions

[HTML] nih.gov Lessons learned while building a trauma-informed public behavioral health system in the City of Philadelphia RS Beidas, DR Adams, HE Kratz, K Jackson… - Evaluation and program …, 2016 - Elsevier … Public behavioral health services are managed by Community Behavioral Health (CBH), a non-profit managed care organization (ie, 'carve-out') established by the City of Philadelphia that functions as a component of the Department of Behavioral Health and Intellectual …

 Cited by 24 Related articles All 11 versions

[PDF] williamwhitepapers.com [PDF] A recovery revolution in Philadelphia WL White - 2007 - t.williamwhitepapers.com … The 1997 creation of Community Behavioral Health (CBH), a private non-profit managed behavioral health care organization, gave the City of Philadelphia direct control over the majority of the funds it expends for behavioral health care services …

THERE IS LOTS MORE I AM NOT COPY-PASTING IN NOW --Doncram

More broadly, there should be more coordinated/consistent coverage in Wikipedia about the United States' mental/behavioral health systems. Including because it is timely as relating to some gun control controversy/proposals. I tend to think this is an important area though Wikipedia editorship skews towards Pokemon character coverage, etc. :) There exists articles Health departments in the United States and Local health departments in the United States, as well as corresponding Category:Health departments in the United States, which includes a couple mental health-specific ones (Los Angeles County Department of Mental Health and New York City Department of Health and Mental Hygiene), but I don't see categories and other organization about mental health stuff in particular yet. There certainly should be coverage about the Certified Community Behavioral Health Clinics (currently a redlink) program for example (see here for some info), currently AFAICT only mentioned in passing in article about Nevada senator Jacky Rosen who is in favor of that program (but is not a sponsor of any related legistlation?). Apparently Pennsylvania (Philadelphia?) has one or more of the certified/demonstration clinics in that program.

In general there should be more general coverage, perhaps including a separate article for each of the biggest city or state programs, or perhaps covering many of those into a list-article. Leave these decisions for interested editors to work out at Talk pages. It looks to me that there should be a "WikiProject Mental Health" but there is not one yet (the main Mental health article has only "WikiProject Medicine/Psychiatry" and "WikiProject Psychology" attached). I am willing to help open that and otherwise cooperate with any interested others, in this kind of development. Deleting this article, though, would be a backwards step, not helpful. There is plenty for an article about this alone. Keep, even if there is outside chance that ultimately it might be decided that it should be merged to a table row in a list-article about programs nation-wide, say.

So, actually this is now an obvious KEEP for now, even a SPEEDY KEEP, imho. --Doncram (talk) 19:31, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, actually this should be SPEEDY KEEP closed because no deletion rationale is provided. "Not notable" pretty much just means "I don't like it". No evidence of wp:BEFORE and not even any assertion about it being performed. Praxidicae, this is not good. :( --Doncram (talk) 19:54, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

What sources exist to indicate that it meets notability? I did a before, and in fact got little back in the way of in depth coverage. Your argument is that you like it and feel like Wikipedia should have more information about mental health services without basing it on any such policy. Thanks. Praxidicae (talk) 20:47, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I already answered, well enough, that first question. Did you click on the collapsed box above, which shows stuff regarding about five articles in reliable sources? I don't want to be too sarcastic, but did you follow the detailed instruction to search"within Google Scholar on a suggested search term. I know you did not. Doing that would bring you to links to the articles, or at least to pages giving titles plus abstract and a bit more. To dole it out for you, how about the one titled "Recovery-Focused Behavioral Health System Transformation: A Framework for Change and Lessons Learned from Philadelphia", which is a 25 page chapter in a book, apparently all about the Philadelphia program (go read its abstract!) ? That's the one which includes the text string found in the search, and copy-pasted in above: "Philadelphia's visionary leadership continued with the development of Community Behavioral Health (CBH) in 1997, which brought the formerly separate funding streams for mental health and addiction treatment together under one plan and set the stage for the integration of … ".

You might think you performed wp:BEFORE, but apparently you did not do so using Google Scholar using an effective search. That's okay i guess, you can fail at searching effectively, then open an AFD, and then be told in a response by someone about how to find great sources. But then not to read or make the effort to understand the response, is not great, here. :)

It is irrelevant to the AFD decision that indeed I do think Wikipedia's coverage of the general topic area should be expanded. It would be great if anyone actually interested in contributing in this area would notice this and contact me, though. --Doncram (talk) 01:32, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

So, if "not notable" = "I don't like it", is not it conversely true that "notable" = "I like it"? Vermont (talk) 20:56, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Is that directed at me? Well, anyhow, the topic is proven notable already, IMHO. And I do happen to "like" the topic in terms of thinking it is important, and that definitely contributed to my choosing to open up this AFD out of many AFDs available to visit. And contributed to why I chose to demonstrate the notabiity of this topic. :) Thanks, cheers, --Doncram (talk) 01:32, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

My point was that you tried to walk around her argument for lack of nobility by saying she simply doesn't like it, which isn't very helpful. Vermont (talk) 10:19, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

How is it proven notable? What sources have you or anyone else provided that establish this? Because afaict, my original assessment of passing mentions, business announcements and no coverage haven't changed. Praxidicae (talk) 13:09, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Doncram has been making these IDLI arguments for a while or so .... ∯WBG^converse 13:20, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Doncram. Fails WP:NCORP; I don't spot any significant coverage of the organisation. ∯WBG^converse 13:27, 18 October 2019 (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.