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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 11:09, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Excela Health[edit]

Excela Health (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)

I speedied this as spam, and tagged as such for the last five years. That decision has been challenged by another admin on the basis of the longevity of the article and the fact that it may be notable, so I'm bringing it here, although IMHO it needs NPOV rewriting from scratch Jimfbleak - talk to me? 14:29, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• I believe the subject probably meets WP:CORP. I will try and add some sources to show this in the next few days. The article is promotional in places but does not rise to WP:G11 which is the criterion it was speedily deleted. I have no objection to reducing the article to a stub to appease concerns over the writing style. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 17:12, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  I've cleaned it up a bit and added some references. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:32, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  I realize this article needs to be rewritten. However, taking out valid HealthGrades data and the references supporting the data seems to me counterproductive. Bill Pollard (talk) 04:34, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  I may have been a little too ruthless, but the detail seemed a bit excessive. We are never going to be able to provide as much reliable information as HealthGrades, and keeping it up-to-date is a challenge, so why try? A summary might be appropriate though. Feel free to add back whatever you feel is right, and sorry for undoing your work. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:39, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  Actually I did try to summarize the HealthGrades data, as there is probably 10 times more than I used. Anyway, we have similar problems keeping many articles updated. I really think if this article is deleted, the three individual hospitals need their own articles and I sort of think this should be done anyway. There is material about the individual hospitals online, while not so much about the parent company. Bill Pollard (talk) 11:56, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  Nothing to stop you creating those articles, and leaving this one as a stub. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 22:11, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  Will work on them tomorrow. Bill Pollard (talk) 01:10, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Pinging Wpollard and SwisterTwister who have been involved in the article recently. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 17:15, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete unless it can actually be improved as my searches mostly found local passing mentions. SwisterTwister talk 18:41, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  @SwisterTwister: yes the mentions are local but fairly significant and not just "passing mentions". What do you think now? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 22:13, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's nice the article has some better sources now but it almost still looks the same and I'm simply not gathering the solid notability. To be honest, I would've even likely still PRODed this if I had encountered it because the article could look better. Cheers, SwisterTwister talk 22:22, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - This article does have gaps that I am sure can be fixed. However, the three hospitals within the article are notable. I did some work a while back concerning the HealthGrades coverage for the three hospitals. Hospitals are notable, meaning this article through their coverage is notable. Bill Pollard (talk) 21:53, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 07:44, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 07:44, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 07:44, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 07:44, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• As promised I have started the process to move the hospitals run by Excela Health to independent articles. I started with Frick Hospital. Bill Pollard (talk) 07:35, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. and do not make articles on the hospitals,which are not notable, and which will almost certainly be delted. What would make more sense is to start a NPOV article on the system, without the puffery, mentioning the hospitals. DGG ( talk ) 20:02, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hospitals are by Wikipedia's definition notable. Do not threaten to delete valid articles. Bill Pollard (talk) 20:58, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think you can make such a claim, unless you can direct me to the policy? There are some guidelines however at WP:NHOSPITALS. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 09:38, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have looked at all three hospitals and can say they all meet WP:NHOSPITALS criteria well enough to qualify. HealthGrades itself has abundant material online on all three. In fact, I have found it unusual for hospitals to not have stand-alone articles. I think Excela Health is itself notable, although the article in question is poorly written. In the meantime I will continue working on articles on the three hospitals. I have put some info into the article Frick Hospital and I can find much more stuff on it without tons of effort. In fact, tomorrow I will do just that. Bill Pollard (talk) 13:43, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I just finished the article Latrobe Hospital, finding four valid independent references. Bill Pollard (talk) 06:28, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - I would immensely appreciate it if this were relisted one last and third time, with hopes to have better attention here. Cheers, SwisterTwister talk 06:29, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep: Whilst WP:ARTICLEAGE is utterly irrelevant, Google returns around 200-300 hits from mainly local newspapers in Pittsburgh [1]. Ideally, one should look into these hits more closely, but just based on sheer number of independent coverage I'd be somehow inclined to keeping the article. kashmiri ^TALK 02:29, 25 December 2015 (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.