Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Adventist Health Portland


 * 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. (non-admin closure) Mdaniels5757 (talk) 00:41, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

Adventist Health Portland

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This hospital doesn't seem to be notable. I can't find anything in a search for it except for trivial coverage and passing mentions in travel guides. There's nothing that passes general notability or NCORP though. Adamant1 (talk) 15:35, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Oregon-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:14, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:14, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:14, 3 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Delete and redirect this and all the others like it to Adventist Health. No independently-sourced content, so nothing to merge. See close of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Adventist Health Hanford for precedent. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 16:51, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep per WP:NPOSSIBLE: Notability requires only the existence of suitable independent, reliable sources, not their immediate presence or citation in an article. The affiliation with Adventist Health is relatively recent in the organization's history--after 2012. If you search for its previous name, "Portland Adventist Medical Center", you will find at least a dozen secondary sources, like the ones listed below. BTW, I left out run-of -the-mill death announcements and sensationalized lawsuits. Cheers! — Grand&#39;mere Eugene (talk) 00:41, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Portland Adventist Medical Center

Merge > Adventist Health using primary source provided with information about original name, founding, location, and merger in Adventist Health, whose article needs updating.19:56, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
 * 1) (a mention) daVinci robotic surgeries 2011
 * 1) (a mention) daVinci robotic surgeries 2011
 * 1) (a mention) daVinci robotic surgeries 2011
 * 1) (a mention) daVinci robotic surgeries 2011
 * 1) (a mention) daVinci robotic surgeries 2011
 * 1) (a mention) daVinci robotic surgeries 2011
 * 1) (a mention) daVinci robotic surgeries 2011
 * 1) (a mention) daVinci robotic surgeries 2011
 * 1) (a mention) daVinci robotic surgeries 2011
 * 1) (a mention) daVinci robotic surgeries 2011
 * 1) (a mention) daVinci robotic surgeries 2011
 * 1) (a mention) daVinci robotic surgeries 2011
 * Keep as per the multiple reliable sources coverage identified above that shows it has independent notability and merits a stand-alone article, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 21:14, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
 * One of the references cited above is literally just their contact information and another one is the coordinates of their helicopter landing pad. Seriously, what is "independent reliable sourcing that establishes notability" about either of those? Adamant1 (talk) 13:18, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep. If anyone has built a modern 300-bed hospital facility without it being discussed at great length in the local newspaper, then I've never heard of it.  The fact that nobody's yet looked in the 1970s archives of The Oregonian to find those sources does not mean that the subject is non-notable.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:48, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment: I don't have access to the 1970s archives of The Oregonian, but I did search its website OregonLive and found 7 more solid resources in about 15 minutes. I'm confident  is correct that there are probably many more in the archives. — Grand&#39;mere Eugene (talk) 22:36, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Cool, more trivial sources like the ones you posted above containing nothing but contact details. You should really familiarize yourself with what is considered trivial coverage. Instead of ref bombing a bunch of links to things that don't work for notability. Everything you linked to is extremely MILL. --Adamant1 (talk) 01:08, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
 * The first one in this list is 200 words on the construction of a new building. The last is 500 words on a US$94 million building expansion.  (I haven't looked at the ones in between.)  If you are seeing "nothing but contact details" at those links, then you might check your browser settings and ad blocker.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:45, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Where did I say every link had nothing but contact details? The fact that only a few of them do is irrelevant. None of them should. Building expansions are just as trivial anyway. CORP specifically calls that kind of out as not notable. "of the expansions, acquisitions, mergers, sale, or closure of the business." Same goes for the subjects of every other link. I don't feel the need to waste my time on an in-depth analysis of them here though just because you and the other users aren't willing to put the proper research into your votes. --Adamant1 (talk) 05:03, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Cool, more trivial sources like the ones you posted above containing nothing but contact details. You should really familiarize yourself with what is considered trivial coverage. Instead of ref bombing a bunch of links to things that don't work for notability. Everything you linked to is extremely MILL. --Adamant1 (talk) 01:08, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
 * The first one in this list is 200 words on the construction of a new building. The last is 500 words on a US$94 million building expansion.  (I haven't looked at the ones in between.)  If you are seeing "nothing but contact details" at those links, then you might check your browser settings and ad blocker.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:45, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Where did I say every link had nothing but contact details? The fact that only a few of them do is irrelevant. None of them should. Building expansions are just as trivial anyway. CORP specifically calls that kind of out as not notable. "of the expansions, acquisitions, mergers, sale, or closure of the business." Same goes for the subjects of every other link. I don't feel the need to waste my time on an in-depth analysis of them here though just because you and the other users aren't willing to put the proper research into your votes. --Adamant1 (talk) 05:03, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Cool, more trivial sources like the ones you posted above containing nothing but contact details. You should really familiarize yourself with what is considered trivial coverage. Instead of ref bombing a bunch of links to things that don't work for notability. Everything you linked to is extremely MILL. --Adamant1 (talk) 01:08, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
 * The first one in this list is 200 words on the construction of a new building. The last is 500 words on a US$94 million building expansion.  (I haven't looked at the ones in between.)  If you are seeing "nothing but contact details" at those links, then you might check your browser settings and ad blocker.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:45, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Where did I say every link had nothing but contact details? The fact that only a few of them do is irrelevant. None of them should. Building expansions are just as trivial anyway. CORP specifically calls that kind of out as not notable. "of the expansions, acquisitions, mergers, sale, or closure of the business." Same goes for the subjects of every other link. I don't feel the need to waste my time on an in-depth analysis of them here though just because you and the other users aren't willing to put the proper research into your votes. --Adamant1 (talk) 05:03, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Where did I say every link had nothing but contact details? The fact that only a few of them do is irrelevant. None of them should. Building expansions are just as trivial anyway. CORP specifically calls that kind of out as not notable. "of the expansions, acquisitions, mergers, sale, or closure of the business." Same goes for the subjects of every other link. I don't feel the need to waste my time on an in-depth analysis of them here though just because you and the other users aren't willing to put the proper research into your votes. --Adamant1 (talk) 05:03, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Closed as keep but was asked to relist as quality of sources challenged. Extra eyes always useful.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz Humbug! 06:14, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep per GNG --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 14:13, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep. Plenty of independent reliable sources.  --Lockley (talk) 16:51, 15 June 2020 (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.