Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mendota Lutheran Home


 * 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. j⚛e deckertalk 20:09, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Mendota Lutheran Home

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Appears to fail our general notability guidelines and our notability guidelines for organizations. SarahStierch (talk) 00:25, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. TheChampionMan1234 00:31, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nursing-related deletion discussions. TheChampionMan1234 00:32, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
 * It doesn't look like "Nursing" is an existing delsort category... Mz7 (talk) 00:45, 4 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete - This appears to be a run-of-the-mill nursing home. I can find no indication of individual notability after a cursory Google search. The article is probably a WP:PERMASTUB. There is nothing I can find that would make this nursing home rise above all the other nursing homes in the world. Mz7 (talk) 00:35, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:22, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:22, 4 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep. A nursing home is not especially exciting as a topic, like most topics of historical houses that i happen to have most contributed to previously, but it is notable, there is documentation as it is 501c3 charitable nonprofit that receives a lot of donations and is delivering services for the public good.  I added 2 references easily.  It is a $7 million annual size institution, is a significant nonprofit. -- do  ncr  am  17:56, 5 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment Guidestar, a source that was added to the article, is a primary source. I work with nonprofits, and I work with nonprofits to update their Guidestar profiles. All data from Guidestar is either provided directly by the organization, or indirectly through their IRS reporting. Thus, making it not a reliable secondary source. SarahStierch (talk) 05:43, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Glad to know you are familiar with Guidestar, and presumably with the IRS form 990 forms that nonprofits have to file and which Guidestar posts for free access to anyone who opens a free account. The 990 forms are "primary" but reliable for some information, such as the financial size of a nonprofit.  We can use information from primary sources in articles.  I agree that it is not secondary coverage about the organization of the type we are looking for to establish notability by usual GNG means.  But, large size established by 990 form info does speak to the importance / scale of an organization and to its likely importance / notability.  Also, separate Guidestar ratings about organizations, which I think Guidestar does provide, would probably be secondary, like how the ratings of Moody's and other corporate bond-rating organizations would be secondary information about a public company.  I am also aware that Guidestar accepts/posts comments about nonprofits from volunteers or anyone else, like user comments about their experience with a nonprofit, and those would not be reliable sources.  I didn't look for, or obtain, separate Guidestar ratings about the organization and did not look for any user-type comments.  Not arguing, just commenting. -- do  ncr  am  16:24, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica1000 03:10, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

 
 * Delete - An ordinary nursing home, one of thousands, with nothing more than routine coverage for such institutions. Carrite (talk) 16:07, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:30, 20 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete. np coverage that establishes notability of any kind.TheLongTone (talk) 11:15, 20 April 2014 (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.