Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Medical Specialist Centre

 This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was Delete, apparently as a speedy. The deletion log shows:
 * 17:08, 31 Dec 2004 Jimfbleak deleted Medical Specialist Centre (content was: 'deleteagain}}The Medical Specialist Centre a Hospital located in the Wisma Maria building, along the junction of Jalan Ngee Heng with the Te...')
 * 23:46, 29 Dec 2004 Mikkalai deleted Medical Specialist Centre (recreated after VfD deletion)

Comment: Next time, please provide a link to the prior VfD discussion thread rather than trying to force it into the existing discussion. Closing the discussion. Rossami (talk) 04:10, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)

New vfd
This page was vfd'ed a while ago. The outcome was delete. I don't see in the new article anything new or more notable. I am afraid author marked "stub" and will add, in a while, loads of too higly detailed elements (as he is doing there against vfd conclusions). Gtabary 20:43, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC) Speedily deleted as recreated after previous VfD. No new info is added to warrant notability.
 * Delete, smells like an ad. Wyss 20:48, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Abstain. Advertising... for a hospital?  GRider\talk 20:55, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete. Abuse of process, and still not notable. Jayjg  |  (Talk)  21:29, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete. Qualifies for a speedy, does it not? Xezbeth  22:04, Dec 29, 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete I looked at the article's history, and it was created by the same person who created it lasttime. This is vandalism and should be speedily deleted. Spinboy 22:21, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * I remember this trash, Speedy Delete as a recreation. hfool/Wazzup? 23:42, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep deleted: The author knew about the previous VfD outcome and had taken part (angrily) in the VfD debate. Therefore, this is not an honest mistake.  Geogre 04:03, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * If it wasn't the same article, it should not have been speedied! There is nothing to stop an editor from re-creating an article with different information. There is nothing in the deletion policy that says hospitals must be deleted. This is the personal opinion of some editors. The idea that Wikipedia can be "too highly detailed" is very worrying. Edit the article, Gtabary, if you think that. That's what editors do. But chasing another editor around, destroying all his work, is unfriendly to say the least.Dr Zen 23:00, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)

There come to a point that you are saying that all Hospitals are to be deleted. There are lots more of Hospital articles on the wikipedia, and why are they not deleted since this is? There is a question to this:


 * 1) There is nothing wrong with Hospital articles. This time I have written with a new and friendly outlook, like Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, University of Massachusetts Medical School, Massachusetts General Hospital, etc. I written this time about the outlook of the hospital, instead about the staff itself. This article is just as notable as all other hospitals. What's wrong with writing Hospital articles? User:Chan Han Xiang
 * 2) There is no law that someone cannot write local-interest articles. Your first article. I did add local colours, and there's nothing wrong with that.
 * 3) Gtabary, I did not say that I will add the same old rubbish information again. I only added the stub, and promised to add more info. Other hospitals are just the same with that. Oh god, what's wrong with that? Hospitals are always not so notable, but in the margin between notable and non-notable. User:Chan Han Xiang
 * Article recreated after speedy deletion.  The article has been recreated again.  At this point, it is simply vandalism.  --BM 14:37, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * I'm not going to delete this one, because I'm party to an RfC about the editor. However, this re-creation is quite against policy. I believe the author does not understand that he is again dancing with vandalism. --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 16:37, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * keep, possibly redirect somewhere. Sorry, I do not mean to overthrow previous VfDs, and I do not endorse the stubborness of the article (re)creator. But notability is in the eye of the beholder. Why should a real hospital be less notable than, say, Fatty Lumpkin or PallaPalla? If the content was an ad, fix it, or turn it into a redirect, no need for deletion. dab (&#5839;) 10:50, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Old discussion
Medical Specialist Centre was proposed for deletion. This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was delete.

This article is about non noticeable hospital. Gives non remarkable informations, about non noticeable people. Read especially the details regarding employees potentialy harassing other employees. I suggest this is deleted. Some other articles of the same kind (same author, same federating topic) like Taman Johor Jaya, Hospitals of Johor Bahru Shopping centres of Johor Bahru City Square actually have loads of content but it looks to be petty informations like about my local supermarket, my personal GP, the name of my non noticeable street, the color of my shirt... Am I completly wrong ? --Gtabary 15:20, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Please note that User:Chan Han Xiang edited out (or, rather, "censored", in his own words) comments here by other editors. --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 17:52, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete: Extremely weird. Some workers are left behind to entertain the patients?  The bosses run their own clinics and leave?  If put into less disturbed idiom, it would be not notable.  As it stands, it's incomprehensible without a generous reader. Geogre 20:45, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep: I agree what the writer of the article says. I totally disagree on what Geogre says. Generally, the bosses need to sleep at night. At the same time, hospitals have to be on for 24 hours for the sake of saving people in critical conditions at all times. By looking from the iew point of a human's life, a critically sick or injured person will surely die if there is no help to arrive on time. So, if a hospital is only open for, say, 12 hours, the person will not be able to wait and will even die. Furthermore, the bosses, I presume, are very rich and prominent people since they are able to built a hospital like Tan Tock Seng. So, I strongly urge you to keep the article. Annoyomous user
 * Delete. During talk, page author User:Chan Han Xiang asked me for other opinions. I vfd the page. I think this page and many others are excellent candidates for delete. --Gtabary 12:57, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete. Non-notable. Mikkalai 19:57, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete. Wikipedia is not a directory of hospitals. Gamaliel 02:06, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete. Not notable. Indrian 04:40, Dec 4, 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep. This is ridiculous, now people are going around and putting up other hospitals for vfd. Spinboy 05:26, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * What on the page says about the notabolity of the hospital, with the exception that it has to pay high rent to a church? That fact indeed says something about charity in this country... Mikkalai 17:58, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep. It is useful, relevant, and the hospital is raised, whom I believe, is a very notable and rich man, who attains the Dato' titleship. Equal to the great Johorian Wong Ah Fook. Chan Han Xiang
 * Delete. And is it just me, or is User:Chan Han Xiang screwing around with other people's comments on this page? --Calton 15:44, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Well, there's irony for you: it turns out that User:Chan Han Xiang tried to delete my comment above as "abusive". Deleting other people's votes? Not done -- full stop, period, end of story. --Calton 15:40, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete. Non-notable hospital. Ant it's not just you Calton, he is ignoring Wikiquette and attempting to sabotage the debate here. [[User:Livajo|&#21147;&#20255;|&#9786;]] 01:40, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete. Non-notable. Jayjg 05:50, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete. Euphoria 08:32, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like other '/delete' pages is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion or on the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion or on the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.