Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ADK 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. -- Cirt (talk) 01:27, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

ADK Hospital

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

I cannot find significant coverage for this hospital, Google turns up less than 10,000 hits and new search shows brief mentions of people taken there, not enough for significant coverage. fetchcomms☛ 15:20, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. One of the two major hospitals in Malé. [1] (Haveeru Daily), [2], [3], [4], probably more in Divehi. — Rankiri (talk) 15:34, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:25, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Maldives-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:26, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been removed from list of Military-related deletion discussions and included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions.... I believe this was an unintentional mistake, as the article doesn't mention any military-related connections. bahamut0013^words _deeds 21:34, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:30, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It's in the Maldives, which isn't the most Internet-wired country in the world (see WP:CSB; being one of the two main hospitals in a country is notable. A few more reliable sources: [5] [6] (not focused on ADK, but explains what ADK stands for). --GRuban (talk) 15:28, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This article definitely has encyclopedic value. ~BLM (talk) 23:45, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The article needs better sourcing, but seems at least minimally notable per sources brought up during this discussion. P. D. Cook ^{Talk to me!} 23:02, 21 April 2010 (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.