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. The editors' consensus is unanimous and the only request for deletion came from the nominator. This is a non-admin closure. Capt. Milokan (talk) 19:34, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Paintings in Hospitals[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)

Has a couple descent write-ups, but seems to still fall quite short of WP:CORP, also somewhat promotional. Drewmutt (^ᴥ^) talk 20:14, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 20:33, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 20:33, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 20:33, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep lots of good sources are available in a search. I see many in Google books as well, which is not surprising as the org has a large collection of over 4000 paintings, and has been operating since 1959. IN-depth coverage in The Telegraph, the blog of University of the Arts London and the Guardian, in addition to the many refs in article already. The Org has clearly established a reputation over the 60 years, and their activities have been reported on by many sources, of which many are in-depth.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 21:24, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

ThatMontrealIP, I agree with you that the Telegraph article is reliable and somewhat in-depth, although I would argue The Guardian article isn't really about the subject. It mentions the subject in passing, and the content of the article is really about the role of art in mental illness. Blogs are generally not considered reliable sources, and this seems no exception. Also, the article, being an interview, derives it content from the subject, not about the subject. Therefore, I'm left with a single reliable in-depth piece of coverage which was my motivation behind nominating it for deletion. Drewmutt (^ᴥ^) talk 21:18, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'll take that in good faith, but I think had you done a proper WP:BEFORE You would have found many excellent sources. It's widely reported on in independent RS.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 01:43, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Sufficient independent sources. Tone of the article could be improved, but not the sort of organisation which generates much criticism. Rathfelder (talk) 10:49, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Rathfelder, yep, totally agree that AfD isn't cleanup. But feel free to mention the sources you're referring to, so we can all take a look. Drewmutt (^ᴥ^) talk 21:18, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. As well as the media sources linked above there is plenty of coverage in books such as this. Phil Bridger (talk) 13:32, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Phil Bridger, fair, although I would argue this isn't an in-depth discussion of the organization. Essentially, it's speaking about the "The use of arts in healthcare department", and simply mentions the subject as an example. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Drewmutt (talk • contribs)

@Drewmutt:, that was only an example - the very first Google Books hit with a preview. Other editors have shown that your deletion nomination was mistaken, and that your efforts at following WP:BEFORE were inadequate. Why not just accept that with good grace rather than dig yourself deeper into a hole? Phil Bridger (talk) 21:35, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I would second that. It's a waste of time to discuss an article for deletion that has so many obvious good sources and wide coverage in independent RS. The gracious thing to do here is withdraw the nom. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 01:45, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There is good coverage, with several articles in the Telegraph, one in the Guardian in 1995 ('Pictures' of Health, by Maggie O'Kane) [1], and as others have said, a Google Books search brings up sources including sections in books, articles in journals like The Nursing Times, Medical Social Work, etc. RebeccaGreen (talk) 04:20, 17 January 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.