Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bhaktivedanta 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 20:37, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bhaktivedanta hospital

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

Not sufficiently notable or covered in the third party intellectually independent sources. Wikid ^as© 10:53, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I found intellectually independent coverage in Indian Express Mumbai Pluses, The Hindu, Express Healthcare Management etc. Check the result of the search in the Google News Archives, please. This is a notable hospital, in my opinion. --Vejvančický (talk) 12:04, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. —Vejvančický (talk) 12:04, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. —Vejvančický (talk) 12:04, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note to User:Vejvančický: If you look at the sources you will see that coverage is not intellectually independent, but is publicity adds covering rather small private hospital (from your source): "The hospital, which boasts of six operation theatres and a separate neonatal care unit, is the brainchild of 20 doctors from the area. Indian Express" Wikid ^as© 15:33, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, this is not the biggest or the most famous hospital in India, however, their work was noted by reliable Indian media; in my opinion they play an important role in the health care not only in Mumbai. This is easily verifiable by consulting the reliable sources. See the coverage [1], [2], [3] in the Times of India and the articles [4], [5] published by The Hindu. That's just my opinion.. --Vejvančický (talk) 20:41, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note to User:Vejvančický:Agree that it is important hospital, just as any hostpital that cures people and is discussed in media, but not sufficiently to have a separate article due to size in proportion to population. Wikid ^as© 21:56, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

On the other hand, not every small hospital in India is widely and repeatedly discussed in major national newspapers. I'm not an expert in the field of the health care in India, I provide material for the consideration of participants in the deletion discussion. For me, the question is not the size in proportion to population, but possible reliable sources supporting the existence of an article. --Vejvančický (talk) 22:26, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I did some cleanup. Have removed several unverified claims in the article. Article still does not assert notability. prashanthns (talk) 10:49, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Rabbabodrool (talk) 21:34, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I don't see how a hospital can be not notable. Besides, this has some sources. Dew Kane (talk) 03:44, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete What would make a hospital notable? Receiving awards. Has this one? No. What else? Having a nationally recognized cardiac unit. Has this hospital received national recognition for any of its services? No. There is nothing notable about this hospital. --Bejnar (talk) 05:51, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 10:03, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep What makes a hospital notable is compliance with WP:ORG, and this one clearly does meet the standard. ORG requires at least two independent, reliable sources, of which at least one should have an audience that extends beyond the organization's immediate local area -- like this national magazine, or the Times of India article currently cited in the article. This hospital clearly meets the standard; I'm surprised that it was relisted instead of being kept. WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:02, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That first article is not about the hospital, it is about hospital-related mob violence. It only mentions the hospital in passing. As such it does not constitute significant coverage. The Times of India article is about EMS training, and does not constitute significant coverage of the hospital. --Bejnar (talk) 03:19, 26 March 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.