Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/AMDA 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   keep. J04n(talk page) 22:26, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

AMDA Hospital

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Delete non notable hospital no claim to significance much less one that is proven. Should have been speedied as such. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 01:19, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nepal-related deletion discussions.  Jinkinson   talk to me  01:38, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Hell in Bucket is back for deletion.


 * Keep The hospital has served especially to reduce infant mortality rate in the region. Although there are no reference to prove in the web, the hospital is creditable and serving around 250,000 people of the region.nirmal (talk) 02:37, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Pesky Hell in a Bucket wanting people's articles to pass WP:RS and be able to be verified as per Verifiability, I'm not sure but Medical claims this may apply to medical claims as well but it may only refer to actual medical subjects. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 02:48, 11 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete Article currently fails WP:V. Will happily reconsider if/when reliable sources are added. On a side note, I was the one who removed the CSD tags. There is a very low bar for passing CSD A-7. Pretty much any credible claim to notability works. The article has that. But, no it does not pass V as it currently stands. -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:57, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Weak Delete Stalwart111's excellent comment below pretty much sums things up. My only disagreement is that while I think the one source on architectural significance moves the ball down the field, I don't think it gets it over the goal line. This whole AfD strikes me as odd. I can't remember an article about a hospital where there was so much difficulty finding reliable secondary sources to establish notability. Hospitals should normally be notable. Perhaps this is just one of the rare exceptions. In any event I'm glad this was relisted. I will keep an eye on the discussion. One more good secondary source would probably be enough to move me to a Keep. -Ad Orientem (talk) 00:00, 22 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica1000 03:15, 12 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete: No one's saying that it's an unworthy place or that it doesn't help people. Without reliable, independent, third-party sources, it just doesn't qualify for a Wikipedia article. Nha Trang 18:22, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:55, 13 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep. It is notable.  It is also known as Siddhartha Children and Women Hospital, which I added to the article and created redirect for it.  Try:
 * Note the Siddhartha Children and Women Hospital search provides sources, e.g. this Google book version of a study on Telehealth (doctors over video?).  And it seems important in Nepal-Japan relations, based on coverage of Japan funding a program or part or all of the hospital. -- do  ncr  am  19:22, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Note the Siddhartha Children and Women Hospital search provides sources, e.g. this Google book version of a study on Telehealth (doctors over video?).  And it seems important in Nepal-Japan relations, based on coverage of Japan funding a program or part or all of the hospital. -- do  ncr  am  19:22, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Note the Siddhartha Children and Women Hospital search provides sources, e.g. this Google book version of a study on Telehealth (doctors over video?).  And it seems important in Nepal-Japan relations, based on coverage of Japan funding a program or part or all of the hospital. -- do  ncr  am  19:22, 20 November 2014 (UTC)


 * -- do ncr  am  19:14, 20 November 2014 (UTC)


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


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  06:20, 21 November 2014 (UTC)




 * Weak keep - I think what my colleague above means is, "I believe it's notable"; unilateral declarations not being worth much in a consensus discussion. I'm not at all convinced by the "it's a hospital" or "it's important to Japan-Nepal relations" arguments. That's a construct of Wikipedia - a form of synthesis that suggests that because we have an article about something, other subjects that relate to it might gain notability. Sorry, no. There are thousands of projects that receive partial or full funding from foreign governments. That doesn't make the project notable, nor does it increase the notability of the relationship between the two countries, such things being entirely within the routine nature of foreign aid funding. What is compelling, in my view, is the fact that the building itself (in addition to being a hospital just like any other) is of architectural significance. This provides a good overview. This is significant coverage of the build and the institution. But beyond that, there's not much else - passing mentions in press releases or other official communications about individual staff with passing mention of the fact that they do (or did) work at the hospital. I'm not entirely convinced it's notable but there's probably just enough there for it to scrape by.  St ★ lwart 1 1 1 06:34, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks Stalwart111 for finding that source on architecture; i have just added brief use of it in the hospital article. About the Japanese-Nepal relations angle, I had come across this coverage at the official Japanese embassy webpage.  Japan-Nepal relations came to mind for me, because I read there that Japanese official "Mr. Tadashi Fujiwara...also expressed his belief that the Hospital will play a vital role in strengthening the friendly relations between the two nations."  It asserts the Government of Japan gave US $938,298 funding.  In the present article there is mention of "Japanese INGO" funding, which I did not understand.  It needs to be clarified that explicitly the government of Japan provided funding, i guess, and/or explain what an International NGO is and identify which Japanese one is involved.  And I personally think it is unusual for this to be touted at a Japanese embassy webpage;  there are not "thousands" of other items mentioned there;  it seems not routine to me.  Maybe the Japanese official's statement of it being important for relations is not worth mentioning.  But however it is to be presented, I do think some usage of this Japanese embassy webpage as a source would be justified.  And yes, I was asserting "I believe it is notable", but that was based on my browsing and finding what appear to be numerous reliable sources (which I did not list nor add to the article) by searching on the "Siddhartha Children and Women Hospital" name which had not previously been mentioned. -- do  ncr  am  23:39, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm not suggesting it shouldn't be mentioned in the article, and I'm not suggesting it's necessarily routine in the context of Japan-Nepal relations in particular or even Japan-X relations generally. Some countries elect to give larger amounts (in this case almost a million dollars) to a select few aid projects. Other countries give smaller amount to a range of different projects. Either way, I don't think that makes those projects notable - in this case its the other things I think just get it over the line. But they don't have to be notable to be included in various articles and that source is solid enough to support a mention (if this weren't kept). There was a similar (African) hospital article a few months ago that was up for deletion and the argument presented was that most equivalent hospitals in 1st world countries had articles - basically per WP:OUTCOMES. I suppose that's where I went for the rest, beyond the architecture stuff.  St ★ lwart 1 1 1 01:37, 22 November 2014 (UTC)


 * I'm prepared to withdraw the nomination as I highly respect the opinions of User:Stalwart111 and User:Doncram Hell in a Bucket (talk) 01:24, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Hi Hell in a Bucket. If you are withdrawing your nom you should strike the nominating statement and indicate that you are formally withdrawing it. Although I still have doubts about this article, in all but very rare cases I believe in deferring to the nom if s/he changes their mind. If you withdraw the nom I will switch my !vote to neutral and defer to consensus. -Ad Orientem (talk) 03:31, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
 * 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.