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 no consensus. ( Non-administrator closure) NorthAmerica ¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:45, 10 October 2014 (UTC) reply

Fan Free Clinic

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

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

A very smlall clinic; mentions oat various places; an example of such clinics, but no reason to think it is of any particular importance. DGG ( talk ) 21:58, 16 September 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 22:14, 16 September 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 03:13, 17 September 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 03:13, 17 September 2014 (UTC) reply

• Keep. When I initially created the page I have to admit that I wasn't expecting to find much to really assert notability but it is mentioned in a couple of places as being the first such clinic in Virginia and one of the first of its type nationwide. What really pushed it was that it was extensively mentioned in this Rowman & Littlefield book. That, paired with coverage in a 1972 Army Reserve magazine and a 2011 mention in Richmond Magazine, helped pushed it even further. There isn't a ton of coverage, but I felt that there was enough here to really assert notability. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:45, 17 September 2014 (UTC) reply

• There were a lot of stuff that came up during my initial search ( mentions in textbooks as an example, mentions in various political committee hearings, and so on). I did add a little bit to the article just now, but I do think that this passes overall. It's not the strongest one I've ever done, but I think it's just enough to squeak by. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 06:07, 17 September 2014 (UTC) reply
• If we had a true list page for clinics I'd support a merge/redirect there. I'd suggest turning Free_clinic#List_of_free_clinics into a list page, but we would probably need a bit more than the few pages listed there. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 06:17, 17 September 2014 (UTC) reply
• Also, I suppose I do have a slight COI in the matter since I've known people who have worked for/with the organization. I'm not in contact with them anymore, but it could be considered somewhat of a COI since I do have some warm fuzzies for what they've done. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 06:20, 17 September 2014 (UTC) reply

• Keep. Appears to be unremarkable, except that it has been remarked upon. The sources provided by Tokyogirl79 are sufficient evidence of notability.-- Mojo Hand ( talk) 21:45, 18 September 2014 (UTC) reply
• Delete I looked at the Grassroots Medicine book as best I could in Google books because Tokyogirl recommended it. The clinic is mentioned 10-15 times in this book in different places, but always as an example in discussions about some characteristic of community clinics. The source cited is not about Fan Free Clinic; it just incidentally uses it as an example and other similar clinics could have been used. Notability criteria is very low and I see that this clinic is mentioned in many places. The weak sources which mention this clinic plus one solid source which actually is about this clinic would persuade me to keep this, but right now, I am not seeing a single good source of the sort which establishes notability. If someone finds that source ping me and I will change my vote. Blue Rasberry (talk) 17:48, 19 September 2014 (UTC) reply

• They could have used similar "first in their state" clinics (and in those cases I'd argue for notability on that basis for them as well), but the fact that they could have mentioned any other clinic shouldn't entirely mean that it shouldn't be used as a source to show notability for FFC. It doesn't exactly have to be about the FFC specifically in order to help show notability in this instance, since it's repeatedly citing it as a notable example of the type. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 07:57, 21 September 2014 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica ¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:01, 24 September 2014 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica ¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:47, 2 October 2014 (UTC) reply

• Keep The size or importance of the clinic is irrelevant. What matters for notability is sources and this place has them. Andrew ( talk) 11:59, 2 October 2014 (UTC) reply
• Merge into Free Clinic. The sources listed by Tokyogirl do not provide sufficient evidence of notability. The fact that the clinic is mentioned in each of them doesn't mean that the clinic notable. An examination of the sources given by Tokyogirl shows:

Of the 18 mentions in the Rowman & Littlefield book, two are from the index and ten are quoting or are about James Beckner. The remaining six mentions do not discuss the clinic in detail but mention it only in passing: see page 13 (the clinic collects some financial information but doesn't use it - which is no longer true), page 43 (someone did work at the clinic and then started another one), page 81 (a list of early free clinics), page 91 (clinic has no eligibility requirements - which is no longer true), page 103 (early free clinics list), and page 104 (good general description of clinic's history and founding as part of discussing why there's a state-wide free clinic organization).

The 1971 subcommittee hearings apparently describes, in an appendix, what the Fan Free Clinic did in 1971. This reference might be useful if a person had more than the google book view because the google book view doesn't give a preview.

An Advanced Practice Nursing, the clinic is mentioned as part of lists of other health-care providers and there appears to be no significant coverage of the clinic itself.

The Highbeam article is a Republican party press release and the clinic has nothing to do with the subject at hand; reading Google's cache of the release, we have only that "Callahan Was An Honoree At A Dinner Hosted By Friends Of Barack Obama For President" and that Fan Free Clinic was apparently also an honoree there. The dinner was held in 2008 and I can't find any coverage on it.

There is very little coverage of this clinic in reliable sources. The only additional sources that may possibly exist would be in the Fan Free Clinic Records, 1971-2006 at the James Branch Cabell library at Virginia Commonwealth University. According to that page, there are newspaper clippings in one of the boxes and it's possible that those clippings will establish notability. But since the collection is not available online, someone has to go and check it out. Right now, though, there's not enough reliable sources to support this clinic having its own page. Ca2james ( talk) 20:44, 2 October 2014 (UTC) reply

• I think a merge into Free clinic would be very highly inappropriate: to give a small clinic of no demonstrated importance such prominence is even less appropriate than a separate article. DGG ( talk ) 05:27, 3 October 2014 (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.