Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sherbourne Health Centre


 * 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. -- RoySmith (talk) 02:00, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Sherbourne Health Centre

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Reads like a promotion piece, which relies a lot on primary sources. No evidence of notability. The creator's User name is AppliedCommunication, which makes me think there is a COI, potentially a paid editor. JMHamo (talk) 21:08, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Please explain how this page is any different from the 519, [|SOY], or theSt. Mike's page. This page is well cited and provides a brief overview of what SHC does and the effects of that work. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AppliedCommunication (talk • contribs)

I disagree with the statement above, which recommends deletion. The article's page does not appear promotional (and a user's name is not sufficient evidence to indicate it is). Instead, it is informational and contains an adequate amount of secondary citations. Isaburo (talk) 21:56, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment CU has confirmed to be a meat puppet. The article creator 's !vote has also been struck as he was blocked by this SPI too. JMHamo (talk) 11:57, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Weak delete The article is promotional and reads like a directory entry or a company web page. In terms of sourcing, what it has working against it is that there are many mentions but I find nothing expressly about the organization that is substantial. Also, nearly all of the sources are local to the area the center serves, and we take off "notability points" for that, although in this case "local" is a large city. The LGBT and Rainbow work look interesting enough to save the article, but again I didn't find articles expressly about the organization. I checked many references, but admit I could have missed something. If ones could be brought to light then I think that with a great deal of editing it may be possible to save the article. LaMona (talk) 03:28, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
 * For the record, I live about a block away from this institution, so I'm quite familiar with it. That said, the nominator and LaMona are both correct that this article, as written, is entirely too dependent on primary sources, with the reliable sourcing limited to glancing namechecks in coverage which isn't about the facility — but that's not how any institution, no matter how notable it might seem in principle, gets a Wikipedia article. Notability under WP:GNG is conferred by being the subject of substantive coverage in reliable media sources that are independent of the topic, not by the topic's own self-published web presence or by passing mentions in coverage of other topics. I'd be entirely willing to vote keep if the article were sourced properly, but with this sourcing it's a delete. Bearcat (talk) 22:10, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete per Bearcat and LaMona, Fails WP:SIGCOV.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 17:49, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete. In digging around for possible evidence of notability, I (a) found none; and (b) discovered a few articles related to this one that may also need deletion. One example is Supporting Our Youth (which has no real sources, other than the organization's own website), but there are others as well. I'm not sure how to nominate articles for deletion, but I thought this might be the best place to bring up the issue. Hallward's Ghost (Kevin) (My talkpage) 21:56, 15 January 2016 (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.