Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/BLK Super Speciality Hospital (2nd nomination)

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. Those arguing to keep the article have not demonstrated how the sources satisfy WP:GNG. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 21:05, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

BLK Super Speciality 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 is essentially an advertisement; the list of notable cases is the sort of material that might possibly be appropriate for their own web site, but not for an encyclopedia .The references are essentially PR,with a few notices. DGG ( talk ) 16:35, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. DGG ( talk ) 16:35, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. DGG ( talk ) 16:35, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete As per nomination, clearly promotional language and as per WP:PROMO Zoozaz1 (talk)20:58, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• The article is indeed quite promotional, but that is not the question. Its a very substantial tertiary hospital and it would very surprising if it did not prove to be notable. Rathfelder (talk) 22:38, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Notability is based off of reliable, independent sources as detailed in WP:GNG, and so far the article only has sources that talk about different surgeries performed, most of which are just copies of press releases, and according to WP:GNG press releases are not sufficient to establish notability. Furthermore, in doing a google search there isn't any significant coverage of the hospital that is reliable and independent. Zoozaz1 (talk) 22:59, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• It has proven very difficult to find good sources for hospitals, in any country; I've tried for many articles and rarely succeeded. Probably the best approach is what we do with non-individually notable schools--most hospitals are now part of a chain or company or network or religious group or government department, and we can make combination articles for the larger units, listing the individual ones. I've been doing it for some US chains. (And I suspect the situation will be considerably different after the publicity hospitals are deservedly getting because of COVID. ) DGG ( talk ) 06:45, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• disagree with the approach that we should treat hospitals as we have done with non-notable schools. using this analogy. i think we should look at hospitals more as universities, whereas health clinics can serve the role as non-notable elementary schools. therefore, we list most (if not all) universities on wikipedia we should probably do the same with hospital establishments. we shouldn't always be too strick on applying notability guidelines. this all being my personal wikipedia opinion and completely up for debate in good time. Epluribusunumyall (talk) 08:34, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Sincere congratulations on being completely honest and forthcoming about your beliefs on Wikipedia, in the sense that you are a hard-core inclusionist and quite indiferrent about policies & guidelines, as you make clear in your page. So many editors hide this stance behind an elaborate game of insouciance. Take care. -The Gnome (talk) 18:48, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• cheers mate, happy to discuss it further on my talk page if you want. just to clarify on WikiProject: Hospitals guidelines, that like while not all hospitals are notable the majority of them (including this one) meets the criteria set. the analogy up there is of course my personal opinion. Epluribusunumyall (talk) 05:00, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep the hospital seems to be at very least somewhat notable due to some of the precedures it performed as being groundbreaking for healthcare services in India. def the language used is too promotional, but that can be fixed and we don't need to remove the article. also in terms of finding other sources, could be a language barrier between what is being reporter and looked at in creating the article. all of which can be improved upon and doesn't require us to delete a good stub of an article. Epluribusunumyall (talk) 08:34, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. There is nothing in Wikipedia policy and guidelines that could allow in Wikipedia a text, such as this one, that is not adequately supported by reliable sources as to its subject's notability. This is quite simply a promotional piece, and the fact that it was created by a kamikaze account never helps. -The Gnome (talk) 10:04, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:33, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:33, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The question is not how good the article is, but whether independent sources exist. There is clearly plenty of coverage in the Indian press - the Hindu, Deccan Herald, India Times, India Today .... and that is just on how it's coping with Corona Virus. It's existed, and been prominent for 60 years. Rathfelder (talk) 19:48, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Article seems to have passed WP:GNG. There are plenty of sources (already on the article) plus per User:Rathfelder. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 23:53, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment on sources. The forensics are not too difficult. We have:

• The typical listing in the Ministry of Health website (here);
• References to the hospital's own website (here, and here, and even archived self-promo material here), to the mother company's corporate website (here), and to the professional association of private hospitals (here);
• An irrelevant article on adaptive radiotherapy, and an equally irrelevant report in a non-scientific, obscure website on a heart-transplant patient's recovery, praising a doctor ("invented the most advanced technique of weaning off artificial heart support", etc)
• Listings in medical tourism websites such as this or this;
• Lots of blatant advertorials or hyper-excited puffery that belongs in a brochure, e.g. in a business website ("The first & most advanced for efficient Cancer Treatment"), in CrediHealth ("there has been no looking back for this hospital"), in NDTV ("Nigerian conjoined twins"), etc;
• And a few dead links (e.g. here and here)

As the nominator put it, all this perhaps makes for a truly great brochure. But for a Wikipedia article? -The Gnome (talk) 18:48, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Not a single reference meets the criteria for establishing notability. Wikipedia is not a platform for promotion nor is it intended as Directory Services or Yellow Pages. The reasons provided to Keep this article are not based on correct interpretation of policy/guidelines. An "independent source" does *not* mean simply that the publisher has no commercial ties with the company but means that the *content* must be independent and this is explained in ORDIND. Due to the distinct lack of sources with independent content, topic fails GNG/NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 16:02, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Move to draft. If there are higher quality sources that properly discuss the subject, add them there. Also, all of the footnotes need to be something other than just a link and title, with no indication of the source. BD2412 T 04:24, 25 April 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.