Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nursing Home Residents' Rights


 * 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. Stifle (talk) 08:17, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Nursing Home Residents' Rights

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

It's a catalog of the rights of nursing home residents, a sort of 'bill of rights.' Important? Yes. Interesting? Very. Sourced? Yes. But... I'm not certain whether or not it's an encyclopedia article. What do you think, o wise community? FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 22:15, 15 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I think it is an encyclopedia article. A catalog of rights is something the public must know.  And, the way I saw it, it was more than that.  It described the rights -- in the way that many wikipedia articles do.  Further, it contained a brief introduction of how those rights came to be.  As such, it is more than what it seems you suggest.  Also, if this doesn't exist, many nursing home residents will be abused with no knowledge that they are being abused or what to do about it. I say it should stay, and I feel strongly about it.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tonychicotel (talk • contribs) 22:35, 15 July 2010 (UTC)  — Tonychicotel (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * I agree with Tony. And, I think this is the kind of thing that should exist. People need to know their rights.  This is the best use of wikipedia I could imagine.  How could this possibly hurt? And, it could be quite helpful.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by JLowood (talk • contribs) 22:39, 15 July 2010 (UTC)  — JLowood (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * This be awesome. Finally I don't have to deal with lawyers to help my grandfather.  Venk2005 (talk) 22:52, 15 July 2010 (UTC) — Venk2005 (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * I don't really know to tell you the truth. But, I do see this as an easier to read (less complicated/prosaic) version of List of human rights articles by country. So, if that stays, so should this. Rosepicou (talk) 23:03, 15 July 2010 (UTC) — Rosepicou (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * The difference being that WP does allow lists of articles, so long as the list reflects a logical or categorical grouping of articles. WP DOES NOT allow articles which are nothing BUT lists. Specifically see point #3, "What Wikipedia is not: Wikipedia is not a mirror or a repository of links, images, or media files."Mtiffany71 (talk) 01:02, 16 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete. Laws vary from country to country, state to state, province to province, adminstrative region to administrative region, department to department, etc, etc. Further, laws are not constant in time. And whether or not a catalog of rights 'is something the public must know,' wikipedia is not a directory or collection of lists. Finally, WP is not a substitute for legal advice. Mtiffany71 (talk) 23:12, 15 July 2010 (UTC)


 * You're wrong. I just looked up List of human rights articles by country (as mentioned by Rosepicou), and it was a catalog of the law -- that's all.  Also, the law applies only to U.S. nursing home residents in nursing homes that accept medical or medicare. As law changes, the site will be updated.  And, in no way is this legal advise.  Like List of human rights articles by country, this is an explanation of what the law says -- that's all.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Maxlivingston (talk • contribs) 23:22, 15 July 2010 (UTC)  — Maxlivingston (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * But what is your position? Keep, Delete, Merge? Try starting out your sentence with that instead of "You're wrong." Mtiffany71 (talk) 23:44, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete per Mtiffany mark nutley (talk) 23:23, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete Comment. Rather than fight a losing battle to keep the article in sync with various nations' laws, we'd be better served simply adding the relevant external links to Nursing home and/or Elderly care. Also, I can't help feeling that this article does little but provide free web-hosting to the US government. TFOWR 23:34, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
 * This has nothing to do with the US government, and it does not compare nations laws. These grievances have nothing to do with what the page actually provides.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Maxlivingston (talk • contribs) 23:36, 15 July 2010 (UTC)  — Maxlivingston (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * If you're picking up on my glib comment about free web hosting, simply replace "US government" with "whatever US agency is relevant". My point still stands: that agency should be providing this information, and Wikipedia should - at best - be linking to it. You're correct that the article doesn't currently compare nations' laws - it solely focusses on a US perspective. I'd hope that that issue would be addressed if the decision was to keep the article. Frankly, I'm not seeing the article's topic as being notable of itself: it's an issue that should be incorporated into existing articles (such as the two I've previously linked to). TFOWR 00:22, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Striking !vote: argument applied to original article, prior to recent improvements. I'm still not entirely convinced, but I'm not unconvinced enough to justify a delete !vote. TFOWR 09:55, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep The topic is highly notable. For example, there are numerous scholarly sources devoted to the topic.  The nomination makes no coherent case for deletion and so there is no case to answer. Colonel Warden (talk) 01:02, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
 * That the topic is notable is irrelevant. The 'article' was nothing but a list, contrary to WP policy. Here's the text: "Wikipedia is not a mirror or a repository of links, images, or media files #3) Mere collections of public domain or other source material such as entire books or source code, original historical documents, letters, laws, proclamations, and other source material that are only useful when presented with their original, unmodified wording. Complete copies of primary sources may go into Wikisource, but not on Wikipedia."What Wikipedia is not.Mtiffany71 (talk) 01:24, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
 * That was then but this is now. I went to look at the article and found it an overtagged and blanked mess.  I have rewritten it completely and so your complaints are obsolete.  There's nothing wrong with this article that can't be fixed by ordinary editing and so it is our policy to improve it rather than to delete it.  Colonel Warden (talk) 01:31, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
 * So you decided to offer your opinion on the subject before you even knew what was going on. If you check the diffs, you'll see that it was nothing but a list. The 'complete rewrite' you refer to consists of three sentences and two sources. As it stands right now, I'm sure that someday it could make a great article concerning the rights of nursing home residents in the state of Florida.Mtiffany71 (talk) 04:14, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
 * It is now seven sentences and three sources and addresses the regulations at US Federal level. Sections addressing the topic in other countries are now indicated.  Please feel free to assist. Colonel Warden (talk) 07:10, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

I will take what was added by the good Colonel Warden, and add what the rights are in a more acceptable format -- should that be amenable to the administrator. I thank all of you for your helpful and insightful commentaries. Maxlivingston (talk) 17:31, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: The article under discussion here has been flagged for Rescue by the Article Rescue Squadron.   Snotty Wong   spill the beans 19:33, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:11, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:11, 17 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Update Starting with the letter A, I have added a section for Australia. This country has a well-developed program which seems quite notable. Colonel Warden (talk) 09:48, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep Afd is not about cleanup. The notability and scope of the topic are well-defined by the existing WP:RS sources and the numerous scholarly sources linked above. The topic is encyclopedic. While focused on US law at present, Colonel Warden has demonstrated the article can be expanded to cover relevant differences in other jurisdictions. See Freedom of speech by country for an example of an article on generally recognized rights that vary by jurisdiction.Abby Kelleyite (talk) 16:17, 18 July 2010 (UTC) Added Ontario, Canada. Abby Kelleyite (talk) 17:46, 18 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment - Now that the article has been expanded in scope to a global perspective, somebody needs to move the article so that the title is not a proper noun specific to the USA. 69.181.249.92 (talk) 19:12, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
 * ✅. I don't think it should have been was intended to be a proper noun in the first place. Abby Kelleyite (talk) 21:25, 18 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep Don't see why we can't have an article for each nation separately if there is enough information there. Some of the rights aren't listed in the current version of the article, such as the right to not be unfairly discharged.  The previous version had a lot more detail  which someone interested in the topic would find of interest.   D r e a m Focus  00:50, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment Agree. I think much of that information had been blanked as possible copyright violation and the article's creator indicated above an intention to reintroduce the material "in a more acceptable format". I may try rescuing some of it myself. Abby Kelleyite (talk) 14:14, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

It was not copyrighted, so there was no such violation. However, I will add the information in a more encylopedically acceptable format. And, I thank all of you for your hard work and encouraging/ insightful/ and kind commentaries. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.47.230.45 (talk) 17:45, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

BTW, the last comment was added by me. While I'm in a good mood, I want to especially thank the good Colonel Warden. Colonel, you have been wonderful. And, it's clear that you care about helping those in need of assistance. For that, and for your wonderful support, you are truly deserving of the highest praises. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Maxlivingston (talk • contribs) 18:38, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you. User:AbbyKelleyite also deserves kudos for picking up the torch and continuing to develop the article.  Colonel Warden (talk) 18:04, 21 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep The topic is encyclopedic; the fact that laws change does not negate their importance. This is no different from Laws regarding rape, Database right, or Labor law.


 * I'm so excited by how the page has turned out. You are all wonderful people. And, many thanks to the administrator, because you were right.  The page is ten times better because it was flagged.  I have not only learned what a wikipedia page should look like, but I've had the opportunity to expand on the page in positive ways I never would've considered. For all of this, I'm thankful.  Maxlivingston (talk) 17:58, 21 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep Notable subject, well sourced. Thanks to all who encouraged the new contributor.--Mike Cline (talk) 01:23, 23 July 2010 (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.