Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kauvery 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 no consensus. Sandstein 16:43, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Kauvery Hospital (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)

This hospital appears to be a private clinic. I can find no reliable outside sources to provide notability and its own website is unhelpful. Much of the information in the present article is unsourced and it is basically an advertisement. It appears to be the work of CoI editors who have also been adding bios of the medical personnel to Wikipedia Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:59, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 13:46, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 13:46, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 13:46, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Coverage from several reliable sources. Passes WP:GNG. Listed with Bombay Stock Exchange Accesscrawl (talk) 16:02, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Accesscrawl: Being listed on a stock exchange does not establish notability. Can you provide links to the reliable sources? Cwmhiraeth (talk) 17:33, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Government website mention Financial Express Mention Accesscrawl (talk) 02:41, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Fails Notability. Full of advertisement. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Entradakoi (talk • contribs) 05:42, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• @Accesscrawl: Your first link (National Health Portal of India) is broken. The correct link is just a directory listing with the hospital's name, address, and phone number, but no additional content. The second link (Financial Express) is a good source, but it's too specific without additional reliable sources covering the hospital more comprehensively. — Newslinger talk 12:54, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Not notable. Doesn't meet WP:ORGCRIT. I'm unable to find more than one reliable source offering significant coverage of the hospital. — Newslinger talk 12:54, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Agree, not notable, fails GNG and WP:NCORP. Wikipedia is not a platform for promotion nor a Yellow Pages. HighKing⁺⁺ 13:16, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Appears to have good coverage on various aspects of the hospital - e.g. [1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9]. Should pass WP:GNG. Hzh (talk) 14:26, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • None of these sources meet WP:SIGCOV, since they don't address the hospital directly and in detail. Each of these sources focuses on one small aspect of the hospital, which wouldn't be enough to make the hospital notable. Newslinger (talk) 05:03, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That is a misinterpretation of what WP:SIGCOV says. The sources should not be trivial mentions, and most of these are not, and WP:SIGCOV certainly doesn't preclude one source focusing on a particular aspect of the hospital. The idea that a hospital with 100 doctors and over 1000 staff in just one branch is not significant is odd to say the least. Hzh (talk) 08:56, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ORGDEPTH explains the "significant coverage" requirement in more detail for organizations. It requires coverage that "provides an organization with a level of attention that extends well beyond brief mentions and routine announcements." The section also provides examples of what would be considered significant and trivial. These sources fall short:

1. Times of India: Brief mention of volunteer work
2. The Hindu: Routine coverage of expansion
3. Medical Dialogues: Routine coverage of expansion
4. 404 error
5. Financial Express: Routine coverage of acquisition
6. The Hindu: Passing mention of event sponsorship
7. The Hindu: Passing mention of event sponsorship
8. Verdict Hospital: Routine coverage of expansion
9. The Times of India: Passing mention of event (workshop). The article is about an angioplasty method, not the hospital.

Also, WP:ORGDEPTH does not take arbitrary numbers (such as numbers of doctors and staff) into account when determining an organization's notability. — Newslinger talk 12:12, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per Hzh. The first two references given — at least — are about the hospital, unless you want to say that e.g. this only counts towards an article specifically about their brain and spine centre. That would be better covered within an article about the hospital as a whole. Mortee (talk) 19:08, 22 July 2018 (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.