Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Homeless dumping

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 as a week has listed no other comments (NAC). SwisterTwister talk 03:17, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Homeless dumping[edit]

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

This article has a number of problems for which I see no feasible fix than to delete the article altogether. It is a stub of questionable quality that is poorly sourced and most of the content contained within it is improperly original research. After doing a prima facie search, the term "homeless dumping" is scarcely used in any published literature or other medium. The term "patient dumping" that makes up the majority of the article is far more commonly used and is covered in the article Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act (whose section "Mandated and non-mandated care" is the re-direct of "patient dumping"). For those reasons, this article should be deleted. Ergo Sum 23:16, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. Ergo Sum 23:25, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2016 July 28. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 23:28, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:37, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:54, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep/merge It seems easy to to find more sources about the topic such as this. If there are other pages covering similar topics then we should be considering merger rather than deletion. Andrew D. (talk) 06:57, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A simple search turns up numerous contemporary and historical coverage .--Savonneux (talk) 21:07, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment While there may be such a hypothetical article on "homeless dumping" that should be present on Wikipedia, it certainly is not this article. It focuses almost entirely on a subject for which there is already a different article (patient dumping) and the content that is about "homeless dumping" is poorly sourced and poorly written. Unless someone has the ability and inclination to fix up this article, it seems unreasonable to keep it as is. Ergo Sum 21:42, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That is a redirect to Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act. If anything this should be moved to patient dumping and homeless dumping should redirect to it instead of the piece of US Federal law that covers it. You are suggesting WP:BLOWITUP which is typically used for copyvios or things that are so severely broken there is no way to fix them. This just needs to be fleshed out, refs need to be fixed, etc. AfD is not article cleanup. It easily passes WP:GNG and WP:NOTABILITY.--Savonneux (talk) 10:27, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep well written and well referenced. A dozen articles in the New York Times archive. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 04:59, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Propose move If the article is to be kept largely in its current form, it would make more sense to move it to "Patient dumping," since that is the term most commonly used in the article and most commonly used in literature and media. Ergo Sum 01:10, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Cant move it while AfD is still going or I would. Also there is a redirect blocking the move.--Savonneux (talk) 04:59, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Move to draft. I agree that this has the potential to be an interesting and useful article, but I also agree that the current article is so badly written and poorly sourced, it doesn't deserve to be in mainspace. So, I suggest moving it to draft, where people can work on improving it (possibly even rewriting it from scratch), and it can be moved back to mainspace when it's ready. -- RoySmith (talk) 01:23, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- although it's badly written, it's fixable. For example, I edited the lede. Many sources can be found, as has been asserted. Bearian (talk) 13:41, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. there is substantial overlap, but the article can be sufficiently developed. Theimprovement is more likely to occur in article space. DGG ( talk ) 01:46, 13 August 2016 (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.