Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sourp Hagop Armenian 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. WP:COPYVIO and sourcing issues have been sorted out. Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 05:46, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Sourp Hagop Armenian Hospital

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This is an unremarkable hospital in Armenia. There is no independent sourcing. Fails WP:Notability Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 04:51, 19 December 2012 (UTC)


 * It is Armenian as in it belongs to the Armenian community of Istanbul.Proudbolsahye (talk) 05:01, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
 * This hospital has played a significant role in Turkish history since 1831. It has saved many lives during the 31 March Incident in 1909. It is an Armenian Christian hospital in a Muslim country which is rare throughout the Muslim world. It has important cultural role in the Armenian community of Istanbul. It should definitely remain in wikipedia. It fulfills all nobility requirements. Proudbolsahye (talk) 08:54, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
 * We require notability not nobility. Notability involves the subject being documented in depth by independent people with good reputations for fact checking and accuracy.  You need to point to the history books that document this 19th and early 20th century history that you allude to.  Ironically, you're using a source that names one such history book, and offhandedly mentions another.  Point to that history book of hospitals. And write in your own words.  I've already seen two sentences that you've just copied exactly, word for word, from the source.  If you cannot write original free-content prose and can only copy non-free content, then don't submit things to Wikipedia.  Every edit page that you've seen here has told you this. Uncle G (talk) 10:25, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
 * KEEP.This is a Turkish hospital in Turkey and is as notable as any other Turkish hospital. The only problem about this article (and some others edited by certain users) is to try to impose a character that the object matter does not have. I edited the article to fit WP policy, principles, rules and standards and will keep an eye on it. --E4024 (talk) 11:11, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 15:19, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Armenia-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 15:19, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 15:19, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 15:22, 19 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment. I'm leaning towards keep here. Its history is quite long for a hospital. I can't find any details of the building, which may be notable as a piece of architecture in its own right. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:23, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep There are no less than 9 İstanbul hospitals in WP. Why to delete this one ? Nedim Ardoğa (talk) 15:39, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I could only find  THESE, and you'll note that none of them are in Wikipedia. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 23:43, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment:Excuse me, you're right. I'm awfully sorry for the incorrect information. Accidentally I' ve included the external links. But this doesn't change the validity of the argument. There are many hospital articles in WP and there is no reason to delete this one. Nedim Ardoğa (talk) 09:04, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, it doesn't change the validity of the argument. Your argument remains as wholly invalid as it was to start with.  "Why not?" is not a rationale based in deletion policy.  Two rationales that are based in deletion policy are "This is an undocumented hospital." (which is the nominator's rationale and which is based, albeit only implicitly, upon the policy requirement that reasonable attempts to find sources properly documenting the subject have all failed) and "This is a documented hospital that can be found discussed in history books." (a rationale yet to be propounded by anyone, despite my prodding the article creator and other editors twice now).  Pull your collective fingers out, you who want to make a proper argument for keeping, and cite the history books!  Uncle G (talk) 10:31, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment I've just removed a large portion of the article as being verbatim and close paraphrase copyright violation. This also removed one of the cited sources. I have not evaluated any of it for reliability or notability and have no opinion on that matter. VernoWhitney (talk) 17:41, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment Let us re-write this article, with a sincere collaboration among Wikipedians. We can do much more and better than fighting... --E4024 (talk) 18:13, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Go and read deletion policy, E4024, and stop mischaracterising this as "fighting". Uncle G (talk) 10:31, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
 * keep A notable verifiable historical establishment. - Altenmann >t 19:54, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment - If it is notable, then there should be reliable and independent sourcing. Add it to the article, if it exists, and I will withdraw the nomination. Arguments along the lines of WP:ITEXISTS and WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS are not enough. read: Existence does not prove notability --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 23:33, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
 * If you are questioning reliability of the given sources, please provide convincing reasons. I know alphabet soups myself, such as IDONTLIKEIT. - Altenmann >t 03:25, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
 * As I pointed out above, the source that was being copied wholesale by Proudbolsahye names the actual history book(s). Uncle G (talk) 10:31, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, I saw that earlier but missed it when I was going over the wholesale copying. I'll go ahead and close this discussion. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 05:43, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep Straightforward keep. Just needs looking beyond the Armenian name to alternative spellings and beyond English. I've added English, French, German sources. Please add some sources in Turkish and Armenian someone. And Sue - maybe you want to be less quick with non-English language AfDs? In ictu oculi (talk) 03:04, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
 * OUCH! was that another bite? That's the third time today. Just so you know, I speak English, Spanish, Arabic, Japanese, and German. But I thank you kindly for your very valuable advice. Be well. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 05:43, 21 December 2012 (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.