Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Visiting Nurse Service of New York

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. The consensus here is that the coverage available in reliable sources for the subject satisfies Wikipedia's notability guidelines. Mz7 (talk) 04:54, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Visiting Nurse Service of New York

talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats

)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article should be deleted because it fails to meet Wikipedia notability standards. I admit that the article is professionally written and nice looking but that is not a criteria for Wikipedia inclusion. The company is simply a nursing company in New York. See below for delete reasons, which is basically not meeting any of the criteria of "Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)" or WP:COMPANY. Lakeshake (talk) 00:38, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• further evidence of delete

WP:CORPDEPTH

states "the depth of coverage of the subject by the source must be considered. If the depth of coverage is not substantial, then multiple[2] independent sources should be cited to establish notability." SORRY, FAILS.

WP:AUD

, a subsection of the corporate notability page states "The source's audience must also be considered. Evidence of significant coverage by international or national, or at least regional, media is a strong indication of notability." SORRY, FAILS.

WP:ORGIND

, a subsection of the corporate notability page states "A primary test of notability is whether people independent of the subject itself (or its manufacturer, creator, or vendor) have actually considered the company, corporation, product or service notable enough that they have written and published non-trivial, non-routine works that focus upon it." SORRY, FAILS.

WP:NONPROFIT

, a subsection of the corporate notability page states "Organizations are usually notable if they meet both of the following standards: 1. The scope of their activities is national or international in scale. 2. The organization has received significant coverage in multiple[2] reliable sources that are independent of the organization." SORRY, FAILS EACH OF THE TWO CRITERIA AND ALSO FAILS BOTH CRITERIA

Sorry, while written like a professional and has a nice logo, it fails. Lakeshake (talk) 00:44, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Asserting "sorry, fails" repeatedly comes across as snide and unjustified. There are sources about this organization. I would hope that repetition of an incorrect assertion should not "WIN" an AFD, though I think it did set the stage to garner a couple votes of agreement. The goal should not be winning, but rather improving the existing Wikipedia coverage. --doncram 21:06, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Although a non-profit, the article is still highly promotional (I consider any article with a Mission section unencyclopedic), with only primary references. Fails
  WP:NORG. MB 01:28, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • Note the nomination calls it professionally-written, meaning it is well-written and not promotional. This vote seems to be about a different article? --doncram 18:43, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as promotional and per insufficient coverage in quality independent sources Snuggums (talk / edits) 02:43, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sorry for the ping-pong like responses to every vote, but this comment seems not informed by any searching. There are quality independent sources available, easily found. --doncram 18:46, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. It is a huge and important organization. Article doesn't seem particularly promotional, perhaps it was edited? And I immediately find multiple sources, including this New York Times article, which terms it "one of the largest nonprofit home health care agencies in the United States" and gives it credit for a lineage going back to its founder, Lillian Wald, who began in 1893. --doncram 18:42, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not saying they are no good but doesn't meet so many of the Wikipedia guidelines. That's the problem with Wikipedia, full of video game and porn star articles because they meet the criteria. Lakeshake (talk) 21:57, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment It is a major organization that is the subject of academic research and has staff who do research themselves. The Google Scholar search link yields, among its first hits:
  • "Are there racial differences in attitudes toward hospice care? A study of hospice-eligible patients at the Visiting Nurse Service of New York" P Rosenfeld, J Dennis, S Hanen… - American Journal of …, 2007 - journals.sagepub.com / Research on African American and white attitudes, perceptions, and knowledge of hospice care has focused predominantly on patients and providers in institutions and community-based care settings. Little is known about patients receiving home health services, despite / Cited by 25 Related articles All 11 versions Cite Save
  • "Healing at Home: Visiting Nurse Service of New York, 1893-1993" / E Denker - 1993 - Visiting Nurse Service of New York / Cited by 5 Related articles Cite Save More
  • "Using technology to enhance the quality of home health care: Three case studies of health information technology initiatives at the Visiting Nurse Service of New York"
• I voted "Keep" above. There is no way this should be deleted. --doncram 04:10, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep and Stubify - a cursory search suggests more than enough to get this past

• Keep and consider merging with improving the article on the
  Visiting Nurse Association. I just contributed an image from the Commons to that article, a photograph from a 1906 magazine article titled "The Visiting Nurse as Social Force". The history of the VNA organizations is all but forgotten, and merits inclusion here. — WFinch (talk) 05:09, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Keep - I have started improving this article by cutting it right back, removing the copy vio, advertising and POV. I have added a couple number of reliable sources, and there are more out there. The organisation has a rich history (not all positive) and is notable in its own right. @Lakeshake: you might consider withdrawing your nomination based on these improvements Flat Out (talk) 05:17, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Doncram and Flat Out. Thanks to Flat Out for improving the article. The organization is clearly notable, and the nominator's comparison of this article to articles about video games and porn stars is ludicrous. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 17:07, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: Article improved, notability established. Montanabw^(talk) 11:12, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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.