Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Children's Hospital at London Health Sciences 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. No consensus has emerged to delete this article from the English Wikipedia. (non-admin closure) SERIAL ^# 16:35, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Children's Hospital at London Health Sciences Centre

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Notability of article is established from sources provided and I see a lack of both sources and information for this article. Searches for sources reveal limited findings. Fails all aspects of WP:ORG Andrew nyr (talk, contribs) 05:08, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Andrew nyr (talk, contribs) 05:08, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 08:01, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep article has some notability based upon Wikipedia:WikiProject_Hospitals/Tutorials Notability if accounting for sources and information yet to be added to the page and therefore should be kept. Epluribusunumyall (talk) 20:56, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, b uidhe 07:02, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - notability is not established, nor can it be from a Wikipedia project tutorial - it offers no sources of any kind, and Wikipedia is in any case not a reliable source. Chiswick Chap (talk) 10:21, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Chiswick Chap, I don't think I understand the opinion you voiced here. First, notability is supposed to be determined by considering ALL the available references, not just the ones already included in the article. You arent saying you based your delete solely on the references the article used, when you left your opinion, are you? Second, who do you think said we should rely on wikidocuments as sources? Of course that would be a mistake, but I am afraid you misread Epluribusunumyall's comment if that is what you thought they said. Pointing at wikidocuments that summarize your position is what people do in our discussions, and it is all that epluribus was doing. Don't you agree WP:WikiProject Hospitals/Tutorials#Finding sources has very good advice? Nominator claimed they couldn't find any references - but that seems to be because they may lack experience at searching for references. Geo Swan (talk) 02:09, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Happy to retract given the sources discovered. The link was extraordinary, and in hundreds of AfDs I've never seen anything so strange or misleading. Linking to advice is just odd, sorry, and the way it was worded gave entirely the wrong impression. Don't ping me again. Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:19, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - it is a separate entity from the London Health Sciences Centre. it is the only pediatric facility in metro london ontario, the 11th largest metro area in Canada. There are only 14 children's hospitals in Canada with articles. "Children's Hospital pediatric neurologist Andrea Andrade, right, with 14-year-old Ethan, the first pediatric epilepsy patient in Ontario to undergo a robot-assisted brain surgery to place electrodes in his brain."[1] Grmike (talk) 13:18, 28 April 2020 (UTC)grmike[reply]

Reply It is not a separate entity nor a freestanding children's hospital, it is the same building. It is basically just pediatric wards of the London Health Sciences Centre. Andrew nyr (talk, contribs) 03:17, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - this nomination contains the counter-policy assertion "Notability of article is established from sources provided". No. Articles should be judged on the underlying notability of the topic. We are supposed to keep weak articles when the underlying topic is notable. Such weak articles are supposed to be improved, not deleted.

The nominator went on to write they "see a lack of both sources and information for this article. Searches for sources reveal limited findings." Okay, and I am going to do my best to be tactful in informing nominator that a large number of our articles have names that defeat naive google searches. I am working on an essay on this phenomenon. When complying with BEFORE is not straighforward. The google news search term "Children's Hospital" "Health Sciences Centre" London Ontario produced 1180 hits - definitely not the "limited findings" nominator claimed. Geo Swan (talk) 00:46, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I'd put snow keep, on the grounds of a flawed nomination, if there hadnt been that single delete. Even weak articles required meaningful effort, and we aren't going to be able to continue to build a good wikipedia if impatient people try to delete every article they don't like, without regard to whether the underlying topic is notable. Many people respect the Wikipedia:Deletion is not cleanup essay. Geo Swan (talk) 01:53, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Okay, the delete opinion has been reverted, so I am stating a snow keep. Geo Swan (talk) 20:14, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If not delete, this article should definitely be merged with London Health Sciences Centre being that it is the same building and basically the same topic? What am I missing here, some of the references listed don't even mention the children's hospital by name. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Andrew nyr (talk • contribs)

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.