Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Corruption in Adventist Hospitals


 * 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 of the debate was delete.  Sango  123   17:09, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Corruption in Adventist Hospitals
This is conspiracy theory stuff - listing problems at three hospitals, when there are more than 50 of these in the US - see List of Seventh-day Adventist hospitals. John Broughton 01:35, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete - the author also seemed have lost interest in the article after I posted the cleanup tag a few days ago. Rklawton 01:46, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per Rklawton. -- Jared Hunt 01:51, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete - POV article any way you look at it. could be a section if someone ever writes an overarching Seventh-day Adventist hospitals - Peripitus (Talk) 01:59, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Weak delete Not an inherently POV topic (maybe with a rename it would avoid this) as I'm not sure using the word corruption is necessarily indicative of invective, but this is just a series of press releases with no attempt to write an article. Jammo (SM247) 02:08, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete, there is nothing here worth keeping. If Seventh-day Adventist hospitals, maybe a section there? --Deville (Talk) 03:01, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per Deville. &mdash; Khoikhoi 03:44, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. I can't tell if it fails WP:NPOV or not, but it does seem to fail WP:NOR. --Coredesat 06:16, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Robertsteadman 09:15, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong delete unencyclopedic topic and seems like a smear campaign  hoopydink  Conas tá tú? 10:29, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per above — M e ts 501 (talk) 13:23, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete POV aside, the article exists to make a POINT, which is unencyclopedic T e  k e  15:34, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep I can't tell if fails NOR, but it does fail POV. That said, it's still a new article--other editors have the opportunity to clean it up given that the author does cite sources--and there are other articles on conspiracy theories. Sophy&#39;s Duckling 23:32, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete WP:POINT violating smear page. General agreement with Deville and Peripitus. Pete.Hurd 03:23, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete unencyclopaedic. WP:NOR and WP:NPOV apply. Just zis Guy you know? 11:52, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete the title seems to suggest a (conspiracy-theory) pattern to this without proof it's just a smear...what's next similar articles on every religion's hospitals? Carlossuarez46 01:15, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. Wikipedia doesn't need more conspiracycruft... I mean, smear campaign, POV, if there's an article to be had with this subject matter this is probably beyond salvageing (other than providing the sources, perhaps... But those can be found later or this text can be retreived by an admin.) Probably not a notable enough connection anyway. Grand  master  ka  07:47, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. Wikipedia is not expose journalism (my own interpretation of that rule). Sxeptomaniac 19:40, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
 * 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.