Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Children's Home of Pittsburgh


 * 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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 14:43, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

Children's Home of Pittsburgh

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Un-referenced article about an extremely small local hospital that doesn't have cite any references and is written like an advert. I'm not seeing anything about this that would pass the notability standards of WP:GNG or WP:NORG. Adamant1 (talk) 04:17, 26 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions.  Megan Barris   (Lets talk📧)  10:33, 26 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 09:00, 27 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep: I agree that the article was blatantly promotional (even giving the opening hours!) when it was nominated. I cut the promotional material to a minimum, and added a lot of citations, including the Pittsburgh Press, the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette and the Meadville Evening Republican, plus a mention in a Child Welfare journal article. There's a lot more that could be done: the organization started in 1893, and I think there's more that could be found to verify the facts about its growth. Still, I think the existing citations now demonstrate notability. — Toughpigs (talk) 18:21, 26 July 2020 (UTC)
 * There should at least be regional or national coverage of it. The Child Welfare artice seems like trivial coverage, as does the one about Rick Santorum visiting the hosptial, and the rest are local news outlets. I appreciate the promo cleanup though. The opening hours were pretty ridiculous. Adamant1 (talk) 05:45, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Meadville is regional, about 90 miles away from Pittsburgh. That's about an hour and a half away by car, and (since the source I've used is from 1897) even farther away by horse. — Toughpigs (talk) 16:31, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Meadville Evening Republican is a local newspaper. It doesn't suddenly become a regional news outlet just because its an hours drive away. Just like it doesn't change the nature of my local newspaper, or turn into a regional one, just because every now and then it runs stories about a town 3 hours away from here. Nor did a local newspaper from the other side of the country suddenly become a national news outlet for covering a natural disaster that happened here a few years ago. That's not how it works or what the guidelines say. --Adamant1 (talk) 18:55, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Almost every newspaper in the United States is published in a particular location; I believe the only exception is USA Today. Are you suggesting that every newspaper is local, and therefore it is not possible to use newspapers to demonstrate notability? If so, I would like to see a link to the guideline that supports that view. — Toughpigs (talk) 20:05, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Yeah, obviously newspapers are published places. I don't see how that's relevant. As it has nothing to do with it. The important thing is the kind of coverage they have and what demographic "level" they mainly sell to. For instance the New York Times is a national outlet because they cover national news and you can buy in every Starbucks in America. The fact that their office is in New York isn't really relevant. Otherwise, the whole "at least one regional, statewide, provincial, national, or international source is necessary" thing in WP:AUD wouldn't be a thing. It's not on me that you disagree with it and have some bizarre idea that USA Today is the only national news source since "everything is published somewhere" or whatever the hell your weird argument against WP:AUD is. --Adamant1 (talk) 23:51, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Well, you recently said that the Chicago Tribune is "local", and Chicago is the third largest city in the US. Besides The New York Times, can you name two other newspapers that you would consider to be "regional" or "national"? — Toughpigs (talk) 01:04, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I agree with Toughpigs, USA Today is probably the only major truly national paper. Even the NYT is a local paper for New York, it covers local stories in much more depth i.e. click on the New York Tab on their website. I don't think the USA really has non-'local; papers in the same way smaller countries like the UK do (TheGuardian, Telegraph). All the major papers cover non-local stories with their own journalists, The Boston Globe definitely covers and breaks stories of national interest, as do the LA times, the Chicago Tribune, Washington Post. But you need to be careful saying because something is regional it isn't notable. Many American states are larger than small European countries, something regional in scale can be quite notable and reach millions of people, some of these papers are much larger than the biggest paper in a given country. PainProf (talk) 01:28, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
 * The Wall Street Journal. Maybe that's more international though. Anyway, I don't see how USA Today being a national outlet is really relevant to Meadville Evening Republican being a local newspaper. Which is what the discussion is about. Not me saying something being regional isn't notable, because that's not what I said, or I wouldn't have quoted WP:AUD's whole "at least one regional, statewide, provincial, national, or international source is necessary" thing. You can have a personal opinion that all American newspapers even local ones are regional or national or whatever, but WP:AUD doesn't make an exception to the one regional source rule for America. It's your prerogative if you want to claim a local newspaper is a national one because there's no such thing as local newspapers or whatever. I don't personally find it a compelling argument or one that fits the guidelines though. --Adamant1 (talk) 04:59, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
 * In practice, I think people generally consider newspapers from big cities as "regional" coverage. The point that WP:AUD is making is about the size of the audience. I would agree that the weekly paper in Tinytown, Arkansas is a "local" newspaper that doesn't confer notability on the Tinytown Junior High fund-raising pancake breakfast. Pittsburgh is a big city. The fact that there's coverage in Meadville means that the Children's Home is known outside Pittsburgh city limits — i.e., in the Pittsburgh region. Dismissing every city newspaper as "local" is not a correct interpretation of policy, as you can see in many recent AfD discussions. — Toughpigs (talk) 05:35, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Meadville isn't a big city though and your the one that brought up the Chicago Tribune. Your also the one that keeps arguing about "cities" and what constitutes a "city" newspaper in all these AfDs when the notability guideline is about "local" newspapers. Which is completely different. As I've said before, I don't think something being covered in two "local" newspapers makes it fit the "regional source" clause in WP:AUD, because it specifically says "source." As in a single, regional, source. I was told repeatedly that sans serious regional or national coverage that the threshold of notability for hospitals is 500 beds. This one is seriously below that because it only has 30 beds and I don't think it's notable enough just because a newspaper from the next town over did an article on it. That's less beds then my local Hotel 6 has and the hotel has more news coverage about it then this does. Otherwise, every hospital in the world is notable. People are free to disagree with me, but I'm not the one that came up with the 500 bed thing, I didn't write WP:AUD, and both exist for a reason. --Adamant1 (talk) 06:04, 28 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep as article is transformed into one that fulfills WP:GNG. Much thanks to Toughpigs for adding these sources. DiamondRemley39 (talk) 19:35, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep per Toughpigs. The nom focuses only on the condition of the article at one point in time, not the actual notability of the subject, and apparently didn't bother to search such associated terms as "Lemieux Family Center", which would produce evidence of significant coverage. Nom's uninformed analysis of the nature of available news coverage is thoroughly unconvincing. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006.  Fight for freedom, stand with Hong Kong! (talk) 01:09, 28 July 2020 (UTC):
 * Keep per Toughpigs, the article is not only improved but the sources indicate it meets GNG. PainProf (talk) 01:28, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep Meets WP:ORGCRIT with improved sourcing. KidAd (💬💬) 06:39, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep Meets WikiProject Hospitals/Tutorials criteria. - — Preceding unsigned comment added by G. Moore (talk • contribs)


 * 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.