Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Nursing Homes


 * 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   delete.  Kurykh  20:37, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

List of Nursing Homes

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Delete, poorly referenced, encyclopedic list of the 'best' 50 nursing homes in the US, sorted by, of all things, number of beds. This could never be comprehensive, and is quite biased in its current form. It isn't really worth keeping, and could be better handled by categorizing all notable nursing homes. Prodego talk  21:51, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete As there is no definition of what a "top" nursing home is, it seems like an advert and POV. Unreferenced and possible OR. Agreed that it would be better as a category. Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone  23:49, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete - not properly referenced. No reason to believe that it could be --T-rex 00:12, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete - Wiki is not an indiscriminate directory of lists doktorb wordsdeeds 18:54, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep An encyclopedic topic that could be expressed and sourced a bit better, starting with a better choice of words than "top nursing homes". Although "number of beds" may seem like a crazy way to measure something, that actually is the standard in the health-care industry when determining capacity and availability.  The list of American corporations that own and operate nursing homes, and the breakdown of types of facilities, is material that may exist elsewhere on Wikipedia.  The problem is not the content, but the writing skill of the article author; the latter can be improved.  Mandsford (talk) 20:58, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions.   --  Fabrictramp  |  talk to me  21:23, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete per nomination as a list with no workable definition, unless someone can find a reliable third-party list of the most notable. And there's another problem, the overlapping definitions of nursing homes vs. extended-care centers vs. senior communities.  It doesn't seem sensible.  --Lockley (talk) 05:44, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment - the only source listed offers the information for sale via their website. Does that mean Do they own the said information, and if so have they granted permission for it to be published here?  Rejectwater (talk) 12:18, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I'll vote Keep with reservations as it is unclear whether or not the publisher of the information, SK&A, has consented for the use of the data in this way. They do make it available for free to anyone that wants it via their website, however.  Rejectwater (talk) 21:28, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Very weak keep, but the source for this article is password-protected (even if registration be free). 69.140.152.55 (talk) 04:37, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete or split. A mere list of nursing homes would likely be quite indiscriminate.  However, the actual contents of this don't match the stated subject.  An alternative to deletion might be to split the article into individual lists.  However, I am concerned about the copyvio aspect.-- Kubigula (talk) 23:06, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. I also thought it seemed copyvio to simply use all the lists as given in the source. US-centic. If kept should be called "List of US Nursing Homes by capacity" or somesuch.Yobmod (talk) 14:50, 30 June 2008 (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.