Template:Did you know nominations/Seton Medical Center

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Crisco 1492 (talk) 16:06, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Seton Medical Center edit

(

)

Did you know that Seton Medical Center paid $100,000 compensation for leaving the cap of a feeding tube in an elderly patient on thus suffocating her? }} Created/expanded by Luciferwildcat (talk).

The hook is not referenced in the article. There are some other problems with references - it seems that the fact indicated by the hook is tied to another statement, except the link does not work, so that makes two references which need to be sorted. The article is new and it looks like it is off to a good start. Fix the references and if possible try to find another third-party source talking about the place. Good job. Blue Rasberry (talk) 18:16, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Okay. Working on it.?LuciferWildCat (talk) 01:38, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

I added an additional source, and fixed the link mix up. Let me know.LuciferWildCat (talk) 21:56, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

I was wondering how someone could suffocate from an accident with a feeding tube and come to find out, it was a breathing tube the nurse did not uncap.
The article and the source say that the facility was fined, but it does not say that they paid it out. Sometimes there is a difference if there was further litigation.

Alt 1 ... that Seton Medical Center was fined $100,000 when the cap of the breathing tube of an elderly woman was left on, suffocating the patient?

New Alt might need to be tweaked.

There are only 5 sources and I question the reliability of some of them. The article depends heavily of the facility's own website and another of the sources is also connected to the facility.--Ishtar456 (talk) 17:02, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Yeah let's just tweak it. Can we accept the article on good faith? I am sure that with an article on such a large and historic hospital it should be ok, if not how can I find more sources?LuciferWildCat (talk) 22:59, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

I do know know if articles with inadequate citations are just accepted on "good faith". Personally, I like to see all noms pass using the same standards, although I know a lot of exceptions are made. I guess now that it is here you have an indefinite time to improve it. I would not pass it as it. Maybe someone else will. I won't raise a fuss if they do.--Ishtar456 (talk) 00:09, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Well as long as there is no huge rush I'm sure I can find more sources, but honestly the organization itself is a good faith source about content about itself, besides this isn't any sort of controversy.LuciferWildCat (talk) 01:49, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Just to be clear, I am not saying the source can't or should not be used, but the article is to dependent upon it. All but four of your citations derive from it.--Ishtar456 (talk) 02:32, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

If you're focusing on the organization's own website, that may bring the notability of the institution into question. Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:15, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

That is irrelevant to DYK.LuciferWildCat (talk) 07:18, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Um, no. If it is not notable, it should not have an article. If it should not have an article, it should not be at DYK. You have to show notability. Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:21, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Wrong. The article's notability has not been challenged with an articles for deletion so it should be assumed on good faith that it is notable. This theater is only to determine if it meets the requirements of DYK and nothing else. As it has been considered, the only thing that this page is here to decide is if it has progressed along with regards to necessary improvements brought up here. It has.LuciferWildCat (talk) 19:41, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Further sources may be able to be found with a Google News Archive search, though most seem to be passing mentions with little relevance to the subject. The institution has received some coverage in books and is noted for being the "largest employer in the city", which indicates that it is notable (source). Given that the hospital was opened in 1965, it is likely that there was newspaper coverage of the event that may be inaccessible online. After weighing the different factors here, I think Seton Medical Center would pass an AfD. I think the article conforms to Wikipedia:Did you know#Eligibility criteria ("within policy"). The concerns about the use of primary sources are assuaged by the guideline about the matter (Wikipedia:No original research#Primary, secondary and tertiary sources): "A primary source may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that any educated person, with access to the source but without specialist knowledge, will be able to verify are supported by the source." The primary sources here are used for straightforward factual information about the hospital's history, so there should be no issues there. In sum, although this article could be improved if more secondary sources can be found, I believe it meets the DYK requirements. for Alt1. Cunard (talk) 00:15, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Close paraphrasing spotcheck

A spotcheck of the first source used in the article, http://www.setonmedicalcenter.org/about-us/our-history/, indicates that the content of the article based on that source is properly paraphrased. Cunard (talk) 00:15, 21 March 2012 (UTC)