Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Madonna Rehabilitation Hospital

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. Very poor discussion, but the (cursory) deletion request makes compelling arguments. The article is indeed highly promotional, and would be speediable per WP:G11: "Madonna’s team of highly specialized physiatrists, hospitalists, therapists, rehabilitation nurses, clinicians and researchers work with the most advanced technology and equipment to help each patient achieve the highest level of independence", "the facility begins to earn its reputation for excellence". Moreover, the article is unsourced, save for a broken link to some directory. Core policies, WP:NPOV and WP:V, therefore mandate deletion. The article can be recreated by an editor without a conflict of interest if they manage to find reliable third-party sources for the topic. Sandstein 09:03, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Madonna Rehabilitation Hospital

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Promotional and unreferenced Rathfelder (talk) 00:12, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. Rathfelder (talk) 00:12, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nebraska-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:33, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - barely makes my standards for hospitals; it has over 200 beds. Bearian (talk) 18:57, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:NHOSPITALS Wm335td (talk) 19:35, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The article clearly does not meet the criteria of WP:NHOSPITALS. It may well be possible to improve it, but at the moment it is more like advertising. Rathfelder (talk) 20:43, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NNADIGOODLUCK (Talk|Contribs) 04:32, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 08:40, 15 January 2020 (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.