889:- 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.
908:
justification for having on article on it though, because
Knowledge 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." --
978:, 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.
240:
234:
578:. 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 Knowledge definition of "notability." Fourth: the primary criteria at
867:
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
773:
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.
992:
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
654:
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
551:
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
840:
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
616:
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
582:
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
907:
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
470:
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
339:
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
746:
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
1041:
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.
344:? 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. --
556:. 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.
201:
860:
456:
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.--
742:(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
993:
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.
1088:
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. --
708:
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
663:. Stories by local news outlets are by their nature news and are meant for a local (not general) audience. No one reading Knowledge cares that Kansas City's community bookstore is re-opening.
265:
195:
434:
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? --
943:. 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.
769:
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
232:
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
583:
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.--
289:
154:
127:
122:
778:
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. --
131:
389:
114:
510:
101:
161:
86:
574:
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
939:
739:
530:
716:
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
412:
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
216:
522:
183:
526:
118:
518:
376:
81:
74:
17:
1097:
1079:
1051:
1025:
1002:
987:
970:
952:
917:
898:
877:
850:
826:
787:
764:
729:
592:
565:
546:
489:
465:
443:
425:
401:
380:
353:
325:
305:
281:
257:
177:
56:
449:
514:
656:
173:
961:
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. --
934:
110:
62:
95:
91:
223:
372:
362:
604:
What article was a "feature article" and what does that have to do with anything? Because I don't see anything in
1116:
40:
983:
948:
298:
274:
760:
588:
542:
461:
421:
189:
1112:
36:
1075:
509:
isn't really an argument. For clarity, here's a sample from the hundreds of articles in the search:
397:
1016:
per
Bearian's explanation of consensus on hospital size, and Paul's "new health power" coverage. --
1021:
979:
944:
293:
269:
209:
1093:
1047:
998:
966:
913:
846:
822:
783:
725:
561:
506:
485:
439:
349:
253:
930:
894:
873:
756:
660:
599:
584:
571:
538:
457:
417:
321:
70:
29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
1111:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
35:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
1067:
453:
1071:
775:
770:
717:
713:
705:
701:
579:
553:
393:
239:
734:
These comments have gone past simple discussion and have become downright disruptive. A
511:
AdventHealth
Shawnee Mission makes leadership changes, names Michael Knecht new president
1063:
1036:
1017:
1089:
1043:
994:
975:
962:
909:
864:
842:
835:
818:
779:
721:
613:
609:
605:
575:
557:
534:
481:
435:
413:
345:
341:
249:
233:
890:
869:
334:
317:
316:- at over 500 beds, this would be considered notable by the consensus by its size.
53:
148:
608:
about "feature articles" automatically getting a pass on it. While I agree that
471:
notability next time. You should retract your vote to if your not going to.
659:
to qualify as "regional." Also see
Knowledge's guideline on audience and
533:(Kansas City Business Journal). The sheer volume of coverage overwhelms
527:
2019 Top Real Estate Deals: AdventHealth's plans for Lenexa City Center
861:
Knowledge:Articles_for_deletion/Abdali_Medical_Center_(2nd_nomination)
617:
guidelines. Anymore then I would for any cities local newspaper to be.
523:
AdventHealth announces KC-area leadership changes as growth picks up
1107:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
712:." The other sources are exactly the same. If we are going off
929:. Many references have been provided above, particularly by
365:
to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
710:
makes leadership changes, names
Michael Knecht new president
245:
751:
are not "trivial". I now modify my statement: if anyone
774:
At the same time your disingenuously rattling on about
519:
14 Leap Day babies born at AdventHealth
Shawnee Mission
266:
list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions
144:
140:
136:
208:
515:
AdventHealth
Shawnee Mission holds 'Heroes Drive-In'
452:link above. Please complete the steps outlined in
371:Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
248:. That seems to be what was done in other cases.
43:). No further edits should be made to this page.
1119:). No further edits should be made to this page.
388:Note: This discussion has been included in the
288:Note: This discussion has been included in the
264:Note: This discussion has been included in the
290:list of Companies-related deletion discussions
940:Cover Story: The advent of a new health power
740:Cover Story: The advent of a new health power
531:Cover Story: The advent of a new health power
222:
8:
102:Help, my article got nominated for deletion!
612:doesn't explicitly exclude local coverage,
390:list of Kansas-related deletion discussions
387:
287:
263:
246:List of Seventh-day Adventist hospitals
755:has a question feel free to ping me.--
7:
1070:. Some good work by Britishfinance.
244:. I'd be fine with forwarding it to
868:we need to be somewhat consistent.
24:
570:First: Feature articles are not
529:(Kansas City Business Journal);
525:(Kansas City Business Journal);
87:Introduction to deletion process
552:to any hospital and don't pass
416:based on a simple web search.--
18:Knowledge:Articles for deletion
859:keeping a smaller hospital at
817:per Bearian and Paulmcdonald.
1:
720:considers a trivial topic. --
704:being met, I 100% agree that
657:Kansas City metropolitan area
935:Kansas City Business Journal
863:, but I was out-argued. The
576:general notability guideline
111:AdventHealth Shawnee Mission
63:AdventHealth Shawnee Mission
507:"Liar, Liar, Pants On Fire"
77:(AfD)? Read these primers!
1136:
1098:20:09, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
1080:20:05, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
1052:20:00, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
1026:19:45, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
1003:20:42, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
988:20:23, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
971:19:26, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
953:18:57, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
918:03:39, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
899:20:34, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
878:03:24, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
851:07:18, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
827:02:42, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
788:15:58, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
765:15:16, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
730:06:01, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
593:05:19, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
566:22:32, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
547:19:32, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
490:15:57, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
466:15:48, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
444:09:34, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
426:23:32, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
402:20:25, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
381:19:45, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
354:05:44, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
326:00:44, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
57:21:42, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
1109:Please do not modify it.
513:(Shawnee Mission Post);
306:11:40, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
282:11:40, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
258:11:05, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
32:Please do not modify it.
373:ProcrastinatingReader
75:Articles for deletion
865:consensus that I see
738:is not "trivial".
1066:I feel bad for my
448:Just click on the
404:
383:
308:
284:
92:Guide to deletion
82:How to contribute
1127:
1040:
839:
603:
370:
368:
366:
338:
303:
296:
279:
272:
242:
236:
227:
226:
212:
164:
152:
134:
72:
34:
1135:
1134:
1130:
1129:
1128:
1126:
1125:
1124:
1123:
1117:deletion review
1034:
833:
597:
384:
361:
359:
332:
299:
294:
275:
270:
169:
160:
125:
109:
106:
69:
66:
48:The result was
41:deletion review
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
1133:
1131:
1122:
1121:
1103:
1102:
1101:
1100:
1083:
1082:
1057:
1056:
1055:
1054:
1029:
1028:
1010:
1009:
1008:
1007:
1006:
1005:
990:
980:Britishfinance
956:
955:
945:Britishfinance
923:
922:
921:
920:
902:
901:
883:
882:
881:
880:
841:from. Thanks.
830:
829:
811:
810:
809:
808:
807:
806:
805:
804:
803:
802:
801:
800:
799:
798:
797:
796:
795:
794:
793:
792:
791:
790:
681:
680:
679:
678:
677:
676:
675:
674:
673:
672:
671:
670:
669:
668:
667:
666:
665:
664:
635:
634:
633:
632:
631:
630:
629:
628:
627:
626:
625:
624:
623:
622:
621:
620:
619:
618:
479:
478:
477:
476:
475:
474:
473:
472:
429:
428:
406:
405:
369:
358:
357:
356:
329:
328:
310:
309:
285:
230:
229:
166:
105:
104:
99:
89:
84:
67:
65:
60:
46:
45:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
1132:
1120:
1118:
1114:
1110:
1105:
1104:
1099:
1095:
1091:
1087:
1086:
1085:
1084:
1081:
1077:
1073:
1069:
1065:
1062:
1059:
1058:
1053:
1049:
1045:
1038:
1033:
1032:
1031:
1030:
1027:
1023:
1019:
1015:
1012:
1011:
1004:
1000:
996:
991:
989:
985:
981:
977:
974:
973:
972:
968:
964:
960:
959:
958:
957:
954:
950:
946:
942:
941:
936:
932:
928:
925:
924:
919:
915:
911:
906:
905:
904:
903:
900:
896:
892:
888:
885:
884:
879:
875:
871:
866:
862:
858:
854:
853:
852:
848:
844:
837:
832:
831:
828:
824:
820:
816:
813:
812:
789:
785:
781:
777:
772:
768:
767:
766:
762:
758:
757:Paul McDonald
754:
750:
749:cover stories
745:
741:
737:
733:
732:
731:
727:
723:
719:
715:
711:
707:
703:
699:
698:
697:
696:
695:
694:
693:
692:
691:
690:
689:
688:
687:
686:
685:
684:
683:
682:
662:
658:
653:
652:
651:
650:
649:
648:
647:
646:
645:
644:
643:
642:
641:
640:
639:
638:
637:
636:
615:
611:
607:
601:
596:
595:
594:
590:
586:
585:Paul McDonald
581:
577:
573:
569:
568:
567:
563:
559:
555:
550:
549:
548:
544:
540:
539:Paul McDonald
536:
532:
528:
524:
520:
516:
512:
508:
504:
503:
502:
501:
500:
499:
498:
497:
496:
495:
494:
493:
492:
491:
487:
483:
469:
468:
467:
463:
459:
458:Paul McDonald
455:
451:
447:
446:
445:
441:
437:
433:
432:
431:
430:
427:
423:
419:
418:Paul McDonald
415:
411:
408:
407:
403:
399:
395:
391:
386:
385:
382:
378:
374:
367:
364:
355:
351:
347:
343:
336:
331:
330:
327:
323:
319:
315:
312:
311:
307:
304:
302:
301:(Lets talk📧)
297:
291:
286:
283:
280:
278:
277:(Lets talk📧)
273:
267:
262:
261:
260:
259:
255:
251:
247:
243:
237:
225:
221:
218:
215:
211:
207:
203:
200:
197:
194:
191:
188:
185:
182:
179:
175:
172:
171:Find sources:
167:
163:
159:
156:
150:
146:
142:
138:
133:
129:
124:
120:
116:
112:
108:
107:
103:
100:
97:
93:
90:
88:
85:
83:
80:
79:
78:
76:
71:
64:
61:
59:
58:
55:
51:
44:
42:
38:
33:
27:
26:
19:
1108:
1106:
1060:
1013:
938:
931:Paulmcdonald
926:
886:
856:
814:
752:
748:
743:
735:
709:
600:Paulmcdonald
517:(KSHB-TV_);
480:
409:
360:
313:
300:
295:Megan Barris
276:
271:Megan Barris
231:
219:
213:
205:
198:
192:
186:
180:
170:
157:
68:
49:
47:
31:
28:
744:cover story
736:cover story
521:(KSHB-TV);
196:free images
1072:Lightburst
937:is SIGCOV
661:WP:NOTNEWS
572:WP:TRIVIAL
394:Lightburst
1113:talk page
1068:WP:PILEON
1061:Snow Keep
1037:Toughpigs
1018:Toughpigs
855:I argued
454:WP:BEFORE
37:talk page
1115:or in a
1090:Adamant1
1044:Adamant1
995:Adamant1
976:Adamant1
963:Adamant1
910:Adamant1
891:— Maile
843:Adamant1
836:Jweiss11
819:Jweiss11
780:Adamant1
776:WP:NCORP
771:WP:NCORP
722:Adamant1
718:WP:NCORP
714:WP:NCORP
706:WP:NCORP
702:WP:NCORP
580:WP:NCORP
558:Adamant1
554:WP:NCORP
482:Adamant1
436:Adamant1
363:Relisted
346:Adamant1
250:Adamant1
241:WP:NCORP
155:View log
96:glossary
39:or in a
1064:WP:SNOW
870:Bearian
857:against
335:Bearian
318:Bearian
202:WP refs
190:scholar
128:protect
123:history
73:New to
54:Spartaz
933:– the
614:WP:AUD
610:WP:GNG
606:WP:GNG
535:WP:GNG
505:Well,
414:WP:GNG
342:WP:ORG
235:WP:GNG
174:Google
132:delete
217:JSTOR
178:books
162:Stats
149:views
141:watch
137:links
16:<
1094:talk
1076:talk
1048:talk
1022:talk
1014:Keep
999:talk
984:talk
967:talk
949:talk
927:Keep
914:talk
895:talk
887:Keep
874:talk
847:talk
823:talk
815:Keep
784:talk
761:talk
753:else
726:talk
655:the
589:talk
562:talk
543:talk
486:talk
462:talk
450:news
440:talk
422:talk
410:Keep
398:talk
377:talk
350:talk
322:talk
314:Keep
254:talk
210:FENS
184:news
145:logs
119:talk
115:edit
50:keep
700:Re
537:.--
238:or
224:TWL
153:– (
1096:)
1078:)
1050:)
1024:)
1001:)
986:)
969:)
951:)
916:)
897:)
876:)
849:)
825:)
786:)
763:)
728:)
591:)
564:)
545:)
488:)
464:)
442:)
424:)
400:)
392:.
379:)
352:)
324:)
292:.
268:.
256:)
204:)
147:|
143:|
139:|
135:|
130:|
126:|
121:|
117:|
52:.
1092:(
1074:(
1046:(
1039::
1035:@
1020:(
997:(
982:(
965:(
947:(
912:(
893:(
872:(
845:(
838::
834:@
821:(
782:(
759:(
724:(
602::
598:@
587:(
560:(
541:(
484:(
460:(
438:(
420:(
396:(
375:(
348:(
337::
333:@
320:(
252:(
228:)
220:·
214:·
206:·
199:·
193:·
187:·
181:·
176:(
168:(
165:)
158:·
151:)
113:(
98:)
94:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.