Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Patient and Mortuary Neglect

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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 and improve. Legitimate topic, contributed by new editor, needs time to develop. Espresso Addict (talk) 20:32, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Patient and mortuary neglect

Patient and mortuary neglect (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View log)

Looks like an unencyclopedic essay and WP:OR to me... ukexpat (talk) 21:04, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

  • Delete: Looks like original research. It includes three headlines without any details underneath and frankly doesn't make sense. ------Seahamlass
  • Delete as per above. Looks like an essay and no sources to verify. ----Ðysepsion † Speak your mind 23:45, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Speedy keep and close This was listed for deletion 17 minutes after it was written, while it was still clear that it was under construction, with a place in the article outline being left for references. If the article isnt much improved in another day or so, then it's another matter entirely, but nominating this quickly is in my opinion abuse of the newcomers to wikipedia. DGG (talk) 23:48, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
    • Comment -- isn't that what a user sandbox is for - to construct an article over time before moving it to the main space?
Speedy Keep - The way that it's written now it looks like original research but based on the comment left by an editor on the talk page, this does seem to be an article which is in the process of expansion and thus AfD maybe too premature at this point. ----Ðysepsion † Speak your mind 23:59, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep: If a work in progress.--Seahamlass (talk) 00:28, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete It makes this bizarre comparison between neglect of a hospital patient and neglect of a corpse; it's unsourced, it's got original research statements ("Mortuary neglect can comprise many things such as bodies being stolen from funeral home which has happened more than you would think") and the comment left on the talk page was "Ok, guys...make sure you get this page updated as soon as possible, or it will be deleted. Remember how I said not to put up just one paragraph at a time? This is why. Get this done! -- A Brundage." What in the hell is a brundage? What's so impressive about this weird, rambling essay? Mandsford (talk) 02:01, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
ABrundage is the user name of Adrienne Brundage, the instructor of a forensic entomology course at Texas A&M University. This article is part of the Wikipedia:School and university projects ----Ðysepsion † Speak your mind 02:35, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep and revamp the subject is legitimate so no need to delete the article. Many revisions should be made, however. Chimeric Glider (talk) 03:23, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Withdrawn - OK, I still don't think this is the correct way to go about writing what appears to be a complex article - that's what a sandbox is for - but let's give it the benefit of the doubt...for now.  – ukexpat (talk) 04:23, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete. Unsourced/badly sourced WP:COATRACK article, confused in its meaning and containing some potentially libelous accusations. Not worth keeping. --Calton | Talk 12:59, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Userfy The article is not ready to be evaluated; therfore, it is not ready to be an article. Keeping the material on a user page sandbox will give the editors time to write something acceptable.--FreeKresge (talk) 17:14, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep. The whole point of a wiki is that articles can be built up over time by many different users. Read the official editing policy to learn why this is not what a sandbox is for, and why such articles shouldn't be userfied. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:47, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete per Calton & Mandsford. Blaxthos ( t / c ) 13:26, 25 March 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.