Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dabie Mountain Regional Medical Centre

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. A snow keep. There is consensus to retain the article for now, with a possibility of merger to appropriate article when 2019-nCoV dust settles down. —usernamekiran (talk) 22:11, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dabie Mountain Regional Medical Centre

Dabie Mountain Regional Medical Centre (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not every newly created hospital in the most affected regions as a response to the Corona virus outbreak should get a Wikipedia article on it's own. The text of this article may be merged into
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2019%E2%80%9320_Wuhan_coronavirus_outbreak
I guess this page helps to check if the article fullfills the notability criteria:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability#Whether_to_create_standalone_pages
My pov is, the article doesn't fulfills the notability criteria. Da Vinci Nanjing (talk) 15:01, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Da Vinci Nanjing (talk) 15:01, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:05, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 15:25, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep or Merge, not Delete. This hospital is notable because it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Even if the text of this article is merged into 2019–20 Wuhan coronavirus outbreak, the article should be kept as a redirect page and its edit history should be kept. The appropriate process for this issue is, in my view, Wikipedia:Proposed article mergers, not Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. --Neo-Jay (talk) 16:18, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep meets GNG, and we include articles about hospitals of similar size and notability in the US & UK, for example. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:56, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep meets GNG, and we include articles about hospitals WP:NHOSPITALS passes all three of the criteria. More Reliable sources here. Wm335td (talk) 20:19, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, meets GNG And is a permenenant building, ulike the other two). All the best: Rich Farmbrough (the apparently calm and reasonable) 21:08, 1 February 2020 (UTC).[reply]
  
• Keep clearly notable per WP:NHOSPITALS. -Zanhe (talk) 00:24, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Keep This article is extremely important in which it is being viewed around 3,000 on daily average (from Wikipedia tools). The information is not only about hospital per se, but also on its fast construction technology using prefab (thus civil engineering, construction, speed, fast-deployment, disaster management-related fields can greatly benefit from this new kind of unprecedented knowledge). This hospital article also has been written in other 7 or 8 other Wikipedia languages. From the 'Whether to create standalone pages' Wikipedia page that you wrote as the reason for this article deletion; 1. Does other information provide needed context? yes, it does. This article can't be fully written in the larger article (2019–20 Wuhan coronavirus outbreak) because that Wuhan coronavirus article is too large already (B-class article) with so many information (and it is still growing everyday), thus that Wuhan coronavirus article needs to be broken down into several smaller article, in which one of it is this hospital article. 2. Do related topics provide needed context? yes, it does. All of the hospital-related topics because of this Wuhan virus can't be collected into a single page, because hospital is not a song or movie, which can easily be listed down in a table. Hospital has its different construction history, different address, different geographical coordinates, different date of inception, different Wikimedia Commons category, different Wikidata. 3. What sourcing is available now? There are Hundreds of available legit & verifiable (non-blog) sources from all different languages, different countries and different online news sources, including both government and private sectors. Chongkian (talk) 02:02, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep This facility is converted from being a normal hospital to a quarantine facility. It would have gotten its own article page in due time if not for the virus anyway. Although this is a bit WP:CRYSTAL, after the epidemic subsides, we can expect that this facility would revert back to its intended use. robertsky (talk) 04:19, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Any organization is notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject WP:ORGCRIT. GargAvinash (talk) 03:14, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep for now. As with the other articles nominated, deletion is not appropriate given the current level of interest. A merge is possible sometime in the future (say, to Huoshenshan Hospital or another article on the response to the the Wuhan coronavirus crisis), since notability is not temporary - it is uncertain whether the hospital will be kept for long-term use, although it seems that it may be converted to be used as a normal hospital afterwards. It's still too early to say if it will receive WP:SUSTAINED coverage, but consideration for a merge should only be done in the future. Hzh (talk) 13:00, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per WP:OUTCOMES. There's been several recent AfD's on hospitals, and the consensus is that even a small one with 200 beds (which would not be financially functional in the United States) is still notable, if it can be sourced to secondary/tertiary sources. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Abdali Medical Center (2nd nomination), cf., Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Madonna Rehabilitation Hospital. I don't see consensus changing anytime soon. Bearian (talk) 20:15, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per WP:ORGCRIT and WP:NHOSPITALS.--5LZ 07:30, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep And stop trying to delete hospital articles when everyone you nominate ends in overwhelming KEEP. Dream Focus 18:32, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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.