Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Deinstitutionalisation of orphanages and childrens homes

< Wikipedia:Articles for deletion
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. Rename discussion can and should continue on the article's talk pageBeeblebrox (talk) 17:22, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Deinstitutionalisation of orphanages and childrens homes

edit
Deinstitutionalisation of orphanages and childrens homes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A personal essay in article space - Wikipedia is not a soapbox. Prioryman (talk) 10:38, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm taking on board the criticism. I've tighten it up, it is a serious issue in child care at the moment. You will notice there are plenty of references as it is an issue that is being widely discussed, but is not yet on Wikipedia. Please feel free to offer more constructive criticism but please don't delete. (By Ninnep)

Following is a copy of posts from my (North8000) talk page:

my article has been updated made impartial - can you please withdraw your request to delete and give more feedback if you think it needs changing further.
The above post is by user Ninnep North8000 (talk) 15:06, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Ninnep,
Thanks for the note. First you should understand that the comments there are not a critique of your work. They also not intended to say that your writing is badly biased. Actually it is responsibly written, albeit by someone who is an advocate for a cause. And I also laud you for your advocacy. And, in hindsight, some of the comments may be a bit terse/rough. But the crux of those comments are that a Wikipedia article needs to cover a topic rather than advocate something. I see that you are a new editor. Wikipedia, for editors, is somewhat an "alternate universe" that one must learn. For a brand new editor to go right to creating an article sets a pretty rough road for themselves, being forced to learn / deal with all of those things at once. I'd be happy to help if there are any questions.
A second issue is the structure of the title. Deinstitutionalizaiton is something that is done with people, not with facilities as the title states. I think that some type of rename is needed.
The subject(s) involved on this seem like they would make a good article or articles, if those articles do not exist already. And it seems like you would be a good person to build it. My first thought is that you need some time to wikify this, whether it be by delaying a deletion review for a month or two, or by userfying the article so that you can work on it off-line without all of this pressure and then bring it back out. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 15:29, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Following is a copy of posts from my (Thompson.matthew) talk page:

Tidied up this article please give any more feedback rather than just saying delete. I think it's pretty impartial now. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ninnep (talk • contribs) 14:52, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I can add --Ninnep (talk) 15:23, 7 August 2011 (UTC) but how about reviewing what I wrote and withdrawing deletion suggestion? --Ninnep (talk) 15:23, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I cannot stop an AfD, that is for an administrator to decide. If, you think, the article is fixed, then it might stay. I had something urgent happen right after I posted that 'please sign talk pages' notice, I was going to post this notice yesterday, sorry about that. --Matthew Thompson talk to me bro! 01:13, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Ninnep is a newcomer who is creating good material. And they have improved the balance of the article. But there is the fundamental issue / question of what exactly the subject and the title are. I hope that there is a way to work this out. North8000 (talk) 12:15, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Userfy. The subject is notable but the piece is currently a long way from being an objective article. Also the title spuriously suggests global scope. I suggest orphanages and childrens homes in the former Soviet Union. (Sorry, I cannot resist the pun: currently it is aN innept attempt at an article.) — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 10:33, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Userfy Ninnep, this means that you can work on it in your user space to resolve these challenges and then put it back into article space later. Happy to give tips etc. if you drop me a note. And I would suggest with a new title. Subject, title and content should all match. RHaworth's suggestion looks likke a possibility. North8000 (talk) 11:09, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Had another crack at it, I have no idea how to Userfy it and googled it and wikipediad it, also tried a few variations on spelling, but I've put more work into it so that may no longer be necessary. I have added no more non exsoviet content as it is a global issue, but ex soviet areas had it worse and are generally more developed, so are slightly ahead on the closure game. I will continue to add links and countries as I find out more about who is closing, I believe Sudan is too, but have no ref at the moment. Re Title, I would just have gone for deinstitutionalisation but that has gone and I have no idea how to do a disembiguisation sorry, not idea how to spell as it's been used for closing mental asylums round the world. I think it would be a huge mistake to merge as it would stigmatise this even more, but if someone felt they could change the title of this and do the disebiguisation I'd be most greatful --Ninnep (talk) 06:39, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well it looks like the Deinstitutionalisation article has it's own issues because it essentially says that the term applies only to psychiatric patents. North8000 (talk) 16:02, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose one title might be "Deinstitutionalisation of children from orphanages and children's homes" North8000 (talk) 16:08, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest retitle "Deinstitutionalisation of child care services" previously all went into institutions, now to non institutionalised alternatives. With ref to the other version I suggest a rewording the other article to say DI was a word first used to describe psyc patients. And with a disambiguation to point at this article referring to child care services. Re titling is beyond me, I'd be greatful if someone would do that for me, and ideally the disambiguation too. --Ninnep (talk) 18:28, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It sounds better than my idea. But in the USA, "Child Care Services" and "Child Care" means day care, so that woul dbe confusing.
I could help with the move/redirect etc, but we'd need so see what others think here on this open item.

North8000 (talk) 19:53, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't look like there are any objections to that so perhaps you can just do it? Does an admin automatically look at the delete/keep argument after a week or so or is there something to do to get the decision made and the box taken off the top of the page?--Ninnep (talk) 08:23, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm guessing that the closers left this open because it's still "up in the air". I'd be happy to make such changes (anything big related to the other article would need to get discussed there first.) But we need to make sure we're clearly decided. The immediate relevant change is retitling of this article. I'm thinking ""Deinstitutionalisation of children from orphanages and children's homes" is the best we've come up with so far. Agree? North8000 (talk) 11:40, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep based on above, and it needs a new title. North8000 (talk) 11:41, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Userfy or Keep. I see no reason why this article couldn't be matured and improved in userspace. New User:Ninnep shows signs of listening and responding to the feedback provided. Might make other useful contribution. User:North8000 makes wikipedians look good by offering to monitor and mentor the new user. BusterD (talk) 11:45, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

For the title I think the process of deinstitutionalisation is more about the system than the kids who happen to be in the system at one point in time. If you can't use deinstitutionalisation of child care services, then perhaps use child care systems or as a final resort child protection services. User:North8000 please go ahead and change. Beyond that what else should I be aiming to mature, I have got a lot of references in and taken out the more opinionated bits.Ninnep (talk) 19:39, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have any strong opinions or great ideas the title or great ideas. But, recapping,there aretwo things to point out. In the USA, the the common meaning of "child care" is basically "day care"; caring for someone's children during the day so that they can go to work. The other note is structural; wouldn't you say that "deinstitutionalization" is something that is do to (with) the children, not the facilities? Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 01:36, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cerejota (talk) 00:26, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep but please revise title — Preceding unsigned comment added by Herjee (talk • contribs) 00:41, 15 August 2011 (UTC) [reply]

Keep but It's very much the system, it's in part what you do with the kids in the institution, but it's making sure that for the next generation they wont be sent to institutions. If it has to be driven by US English then DI of child protection systems is closest to the truth. 109.145.16.171 (talk) 09:20, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I had another idea. How 'bout "Deinstitutionalisation from orphanages and children's homes". Just a one word change ("of" -> "from") and adding the apostrophe. North8000 (talk) 10:25, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Agree. BTW, I think naming problems were germane to the AFD discussion because those made it unclear what the subject of the article is. North8000 (talk) 11:50, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. — frankie (talk) 03:55, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. — frankie (talk) 03:55, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

DGG are you serious, it has 20 references - there are DI programmes in many countries, it's not just one paper. Ninnep (talk) 13:08, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

my error, but it remains a POV essay. DGG ( talk ) 23:05, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I previously changed my opinion to KEEP. I think it clearly meets and has established notability. The title needs changing. May I suggest closing this as "keep" with the understanding that the title will be changed, and then move the title discussion to the talk page of the article? I'd be happy to participate on the title change and help it happen and help make sure it happens. Also to nudge this much-improved article into being one step more Wikified. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 13:43, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Altho the article needs some work, it's been a major movement. As usual, a lot of the literature refers to the US. Try a Google book search on Deinstitutionalization orphanages foster [1]. I think the majority of the results are from reliable publishers. There were two or three major waves here; see Orphan trains for the first; another one in the 1970s [2]. If it's kept, I'll expand it some, referenced. Novickas (talk) 22:06, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. The topic is notable, but the article is still relying heavily on wp:primary sources, like the text of various government programs. It needs more secondary sources, like books, newspaper articles etc. Those aren't hard to find in this case; search Google Books & News. FuFoFuEd (talk) 10:48, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Orphanage, I'm sorry, but I really don't think this needs its own article. It just goes over and over the same thing. Cut to the chase and merge to Orphanage. --Matthew Thompson talk to me bro! 02:55, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Notice to Administrators User:Herjee has been blocked and User:109.145.16.171's only contribs are to this AfD and the article in question. --Matthew Thompson talk to me bro! 03:14, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Herjee has been blocked for socking, but apparently not in this discussion. FuFoFuEd (talk) 03:16, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've added a few more secondary sources, keep the ideas coming and I'll develop this further. There are more secondary sources out there but I don't have time to put them all in this weekend. Ninnep (talk) 08:49, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Look! [5] The United Nations supports it! Their "global Agenda" is "deinstitutionalization” which is "a new school of thought." Seriously, many nations do it, there a global effort to do this. Even the United Nations is involved. Dream Focus 06:15, 23 August 2011 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Deinstitutionalisation_of_orphanages_and_childrens_homes&oldid=1070484687"