Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Halifax Health Medical Center


 * 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   Delete. Lankiveil (speak to me) 12:05, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Halifax Health Medical Center
'''
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions.   —benjicharlton (talk) 00:15, 29 August 2008 (UTC) '''


 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

I think this should actually be tagged WP:CSD#A7 but let it be debated for a bit before delation if neccessary. The article contains no discernable historical information concerning the hospital. I did a fast edit to remove all the phone numbers posted!. see article history. There a no references for the quality of the medicine performed. The creator sites no notable references which can be used to gauge the hospitals notability. If the entry appeared like (example: Jackson Memorial Hospital) It might be tolerable, but I question even that articles encyclopaedic value. The information presented is repeatitive and easily found in other wikipedia references.

Sections such as

''===== VitalStim =====

VitalStim Therapy is a breakthrough program that helps activate key muscles in patients who suffer with difficulty swallowing. This non-invasive, painless treatment uses neuromuscular electrical stimulation to improve strength and control of the muscles used for swallowing. Electrodes specially designed for placement on the surface of the neck stimulate these muscles, helping people relearn how to swallow. It can give hope to those who are socially isolated and in despair over their inability to eat.''

Are examples of advertising without any decent peer reviewed references.

Much of the content presented here would be better suited to a commercial webpage detailing the services of the hospital and contact details - I dont dispute that having this information on the internet is valuable just not as part of an encyclopaedia.... benjicharlton (talk) 05:01, 26 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions.   —• Gene93k (talk) 11:13, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions.   —• Gene93k (talk) 11:13, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment. Unencyclopedic writing is not a valid basis for CSD#A7. This hospital clearly  asserts  notability as the region's Level II trauma center. Copyvio (G12) cannot be ruled out here. However, assessing the hospital's quality of care violates WP:NOTGUIDE. WP:Notability is based by 3rd-party WP:RS interest available to describe the subject's basic nature from a WP:NPOV. A search of Google Books suggests that RS coverage is out there to allow that, even if we have to stubify the article and start over. • Gene93k (talk) 11:51, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment No I agree the basis for WP:CSD is assertion of the possibility of meeting notability criteria, and as Gene93k states the hospital asserts itself as a Level 2 Trauma centre - which I assume can be confirmed somewhere (not being US based I would not know where to look). If this is confirmed and wikipedians have agreed that being a level 2 trauma centre covers notability fair enough, however given that the article, bar the first sentence stating the history of the centre, has major problems .  Which in my opinion would leave barely enough for even a stub.


 * I also conducted a quick google search. My opinion was that of those articles that appeared to be only 1 that was from an independently verifiable source - which outlined the fact the hospital was broadcasting surgery on the internet...which I might add was a press release from the Hospital press room - unless this hospital was one of the first in the world to do so I dont think this is Notable - the remainder appeared to be exactly what this article is in the main ie Loosely worded advertising.


 * The google books search appeared to list a couple of guides that referenced Halifax and health centres, not specifically this centre though...these guides seemed to be directories ...nothing that would equate to notability under WP:CORP My point about referencing quality of service - I did not mean to suggest this was missing I  was commenting  that the article as it stands breaches WP:NOTGUIDE - buy this I mean the extensive procedures listed are simply there as a guide to the proceedures the centre is capable of performing and how to contact the centre and have the procedure.


 * I have major concerns as well with the Author after looking at the username, articles created and edited, I have to believe must have WP:Conflict of interest and thus WP:NPOV
 * As it stands I unless the Level 2 trauma thing reaches notability and even if it does the article has be reduced to a couple of sentences (obviously more discussion for the talk page - but I figure the lead in and history would stay) so that being said I still throw my chips into the


 * Delete After reading WP:CORP again I dont believe that being a level II Acute Trauma Centre denotes automatic notability. I agree that as such a trauma centre it is probably the hospital has had enough coverage in verifiable media to meet WP:N but I cant find any such articles other than directories of hospitals etc ..which is not enough to meet the criteria.benjicharlton (talk) 05:36, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Weak, weak keep - Wow, 40 Mbytes Kbytes of indiscriminate detail from a single-purpose account! Not sure if pruning this down to what is notable wouldn't be tantamount to deletion. ~ Ningauble (talk) 21:01, 26 August 2008 (UTC) Oops. Correct units of measure. What's a few orders of magnitude between freinds? ~ Ningauble (talk) 02:01, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment - as an aside I have started a discussion on what consitutes notability for hospitals on Wikipedia talk:Notability (organizations and companies) if any one is at all interested in the overall issue. Really this is one of many hospitals that might fall under the same problem.benjicharlton (talk) 05:41, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete as spam. The article as written is promotional in nature with a large list of services offered.  Furthermore, there appears to be copyright issues as well as there is text that has been taken from the hospital web site.  If the hospital is notable, the artile would need a complete rewrite.  In other words, there's nothing to salvage.  -- Whpq (talk) 21:06, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. Individual notability not asserted above other general hospitals offering general services (you can get rhinoplasty and lymphoma treatment in most general hospitals) and other level 2 trauma centers. I believe there is a more general discussion going on somewhere about the notability of hospitals. There are no definite criteria about the notability of hospitals yet. JFW | T@lk  06:35, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete as written. Clearly this place merits an article.  However the current one is spam any way you cut it.  Better to start over.  So no objection to replacing this with a proper article. Vegaswikian (talk) 04:41, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Change that to Speedy delete as multiple copy vios from this site. Vegaswikian (talk) 04:49, 31 August 2008 (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.