Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Care Hospitals


 * 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. Spartaz Humbug! 20:03, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

Care Hospitals

 * – ( View AfD View log  Hospitals )
 * No credible citations. Out of 4, 2 references are originating from self-published sources. - Hatchens (talk) 17:07, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 17:56, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 17:57, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 17:57, 27 April 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep 2 of the references on the article confirms that the subject passes WP:GNG. Also check . Aman Kumar Goel (Talk) 12:37, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Surprisingly for a hospital, it has a nearly non-existing presence in the news or any scholarly journals - fails to pass WP:GNG without any doubt. On top of that, 50% of references are self-published. The subject of the article is trying to masquerade as a Wikipedia entry. Simply Delete per nom. - Hatchens (talk) 01:45, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Hatchens, how can you say "Delete per nom" when you are the nom? And how exactly did you come to the conclusion that this topic doesn't pass GNG "without any doubt"?  As the native languages of the headquarters of this company are Telugu and Urdu, are you a fluent reader in both and you've completed an extensive WP:BEFORE search in both of them? Oakshade (talk) 01:51, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Oakshade, I am justifying my nomination. I guess, its not a crime. - Hatchens (talk) 02:22, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Actually, it is a Wiki crime. Per WP:AFDFORMAT, "Nomination already implies that the nominator recommends deletion (unless indicated otherwise), and nominators should refrain from repeating this."Oakshade (talk) 02:34, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm so mortified. Thank you for the enlightenment. - Hatchens (talk) 06:57, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Oakshade, If the subject is well known in its native language such as Telugu and Urdu. Then, why there are no articles about it in those language wikis? Anyway, I cannot understand your aggressive defense for the subject. Let other's decide. Peace!- Hatchens (talk) 02:27, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
 * So you've not researched in either of the native languages of the headquarters of this company. It's quite common for topics in non-English speaking countries to have articles in English WP but not in that country's language WP. And we are letting others decide. It's when you make dubious claims of a topic not passing GNG "without any doubt" you are going to be called on it. That's not stopping others from deciding. Oakshade (talk) 03:01, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Instead of doing nonsensical argument over here. Why don't you edit the subject's English Wikipedia page by using proper notability driven sources and justify your stand with regards to WP:GNG. Seriously, dude... you need to chill. - Hatchens (talk) 06:57, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Per WP:GNG, notability is not based on sources in the article but the existence of sources - see WP:NEXIST. You really should become familiar with the fundamental basics of notability standards and WP:AFD before starting AfDs.Oakshade (talk) 16:35, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Existence of suitable source(s). Not just a source or couple of sources! Anyway, can you find a few relevant ones and add them to the article contextually? And, let far more competent authority decide the further course of action. Relax! - Hatchens (talk) 02:04, 30 April 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep per nom. Even the nom admits two of four references in the article are independent of the subject and both of those appear to demonstrate  passing of GNG. That there are two primary references is simply a red herring.  In addition to the coverage found by Aman Kumar Goel, Health Affairs published a report with extensive coverage of this hospital.Oakshade (talk) 01:49, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Oakshade In Health Affairs article, the subject barely gets couple of passing mentions. First one, Para 4, Page: 1264 and second one is at endnote section, No:8, Page: 1269. I simply don't understand how this reference qualifies the subject to pass WP:GNG and in what context. On top of that, why this reference was never been used in the article before. You are going in all directions which I cannot comprehend. Let far more competent authority decide the further course of action. Peace! - Hatchens (talk) 02:22, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
 * What?  The ENTIRE FIRST SIX PAGES is about Care. A source doesn't have to continuously print the name when there's a story about them. It can "mention" the name just one time and still go into detail of the topic. But even so, I counted 25 times "Care" (capital "C") is printed.Oakshade (talk) 02:34, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
 * ENTIRE FIRST SIX PAGES of only one article source doesn't justify the notability of the subject. Even if you keep counting it 25 times or more. Period! - Hatchens (talk) 06:57, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Circling back to the original !vote, the entire first six pages of that source dedicated to this topic which you now are admitting (thanks for putting it in all-caps) is in addition to the two sources you admitted in the nom statement that are independent of the topic. Oakshade (talk) 16:05, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Dear Oakshade, your circling back is actually called the manipulation of AfD discussion for whatever reason may be. This is what I do ADMIT at this particular hour (thank me again if you want to for putting it in all-caps). Again, I am requesting you... if you have any relevant sources to add to the article, then do it contextually. And, let far more competent authority decide the further course of action. Why so serious? - Hatchens (talk) 02:04, 30 April 2020 (UTC)


 * Comment - Even after the vigorous resistance shown by a certain user, the article page is not updated with any relevant contextual references (as requested). Besides that, when I studied the edit history of this article - Avinashmatta (12:45, 16 August 2017‎) and IP address:183.82.122.186 (10:43, 3 August 2017‎) made two similar kinds of edits in 2017 and both have clearly stated in the edit summary, "I received the information directly from the CARE Hospitals communication department." This is now beyond doubt, this page has been created by certain individuals as per the directives provided by the entity mentioned in the article. However, I am hoping for getting sufficient participation before this AfD gets relisted. Everyone, kindly cooperate and let's derive an apt conclusion. - Hatchens (talk) 04:18, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
 * You need to become familiar with WP:NOTABLITY, WP:GNG and WP:NEXIST which only requires the existence of sources, not that they be already placed in the article, context or not. Oakshade (talk) 21:41, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you Oakshade. Your point has been duly noted! - Hatchens (talk) 07:21, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

*Delete promo article on a company that fails WP:ORGCRIT due to lack of coverage. --Cedix (talk) 19:28, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
 * How is very in-depth coverage by Health Affairs plus two of the four independent coverages already in the article lack of coverage? Oakshade (talk) 21:35, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sulfurboy (talk) 00:41, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep Clear evidence of significant coverage in independent, reliable sources has been demonstrated by the links already included above. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 19:23, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep fifth largest healthcare provider in India. [] TimTempleton (talk) (cont)  19:50, 13 May 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.