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. obvious consensus/near unanimous for keeping the article JForget 01:52, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes. However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: ((subst:spa|username)); suspected canvassed users: ((subst:canvassed|username)); accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: ((subst:csm|username)) or ((subst:csp|username)).

Manatee Palms Youth Services (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • AfD statistics)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Failing to meet WP:N, WP:CORP Joe routt (talk) 14:22, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, how does it fail WP:CORP? -Regancy42 (talk) 14:26, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There is no inherent notability. The facility has been around for years, yet the article was created less than a month ago, apparently with the purpose of cataloging its audits. Joe routt (talk) 14:48, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. AFD is not cleanup. The article needs works and does have POV issues, but that's not an argument for deletion and there appear to be plenty of references covering a period of years that seem sufficient to meet WP:N. It looks like the Criticism section needs review for WP:UNDUE, tho. --Nuujinn (talk) 15:25, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Clear notability with multiple reliable sources. Torchiest ^talk/_contribs 15:32, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete There is one other article on a Florida psychiatric hospital (and one on a defunct chain of hospitals). A small hospital in a small city isn't notable no matter how you cut it. 97.67.16.26 (talk) 15:44, 5 June 2010 (UTC) — 97.67.16.26 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
• (edit conflict) Keep—to say that "a small hospital in a small city isn't notable no matter how you cut it" is simply untrue. Anyone and anything can be notable if they meet the relevant notability standard, and this page's several references strongly indicate that it does. ╟─TreasuryTag►hemicycle─╢ 15:53, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  Comment The references are to its criticisms, outside of which it is not notable. Criticism alone is not justification for an article. 97.67.16.26 (talk) 16:02, 5 June 2010 (UTC) — 97.67.16.26 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

  So what? As long as there has been "significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources" – whether critical or overflowing with praise – the page meets WP:CORP. ╟─TreasuryTag►Regent─╢ 16:06, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete This article isn't notable outside its criticisms. Its existence seems to serve little more than a (quite POV) soapbox. Joe routt (talk) 15:52, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  Comment to closing admin—the above comment is from the nominator, so please be sure you don't count their argument twice, since they have chosen to label it "delete" – ╟─TreasuryTag►inspectorate─╢ 15:58, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment to closing admin—there have been suggestions of sockpuppetry in this discussion. See the SPI page and also this – ╟─TreasuryTag►belonger─╢ 16:08, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  I am not a sock. 97.67.16.26 (talk) 16:12, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:49, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:50, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep While most of the sources are useless for establishing notability, I see significant coverage in the Miami Herald article which is far enough away to be non-local, and the state of florida AHCA document (listed as Propublica) which is full of largely useless boilerplate, but still has 6.5 pages of deficiencies/hospital practices so I think that also qualifies. So while the only usable sources are basically about the same thing - the closing of the hospital - I still think that it squeaks by WP:CORP. VernoWhitney (talk) 16:59, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - This clearly has multiple instances of non-trivial coverage from reliable sources. This clearly meets WP:N. cmadler (talk) 17:11, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment This will be my final comment. This article seems to be a case of WP:COAT. (I hadn't previously known about this classification.) I believe that this article exists only as a vehicle for criticism, and that if it does not pass the nomination for deletion (which I respectfully maintain that it should), that it must be significantly trimmed. Joe routt (talk) 17:23, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  I tend to agree that it is a coatrack article. However, as Wikipedia:COAT#What to do about coatracks clearly states, fixing the problem is preferable to deletion. WP:COAT on its own is no reason to delete. ╟─TreasuryTag►sundries─╢ 17:25, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per Cmadler and others. Many references[1] I've reviewed a number of them and found sustained substantial coverage by regional reliable news sources over a period of time on multiple matters. The fact that most of the events that gave rise to the institution's notability are negative ones is not a criticism as such, it's just a series of negative events. Perhaps that comes with the territory of being a mental hospital, particularly a "troubled" one.[2] Although some of the negative items are probably not worth noting in such a short article there are more recent events (an involuntary closure, new claims of abuse, etc.) that are not yet treated in the article. The article has the potential to be a WP:COATRACK and we need to make sure all of this stuff is presented in neutral, encyclopedic form. That probably means getting rid of the "criticism" section in favor of a chronologically or thematically ordered structure. If the article is imbalanced, we can trim at the edges but rather than getting rid of any key events in the institution's history, it would be better to fill out the other sections with a reasonable account of the institution's founding, management, programs, finances, and so on. (note: I was alerted to this discussion by the AN/I report in question) - Wikidemon (talk) 17:32, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Normally a small for-profit hospital would not be notable, but this one has been the subject of significant reporting, mainstream and not just local, for some years. I think its current tone is adequately factual, balanced, and neutral. Since most of the reporting is about problems the hospital has had (with state regulators etc.), it's inevitable that the overall effect of the article will be negative. That's not a failure of neutrality; it's the state of nature, based on the sources given. --MelanieN (talk) 15:34, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per cmadler and TreasuryTag. There's obviously significant coverage, and we can improve the article rather than delete it. —fetch·comms 00:24, 12 June 2010 (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.