Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of burn centers in the United States (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 keep. postdlf (talk) 15:36, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

List of burn centers in the United States[edit]

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

This is a largely uncited list (and any cites that do exist are and probably would continue to be primary sources). Most of the list entries are redlinked - those that are not redlinked are not, in the sample I checked, standalone articles, but sections or even just sentences about the burn centre in an article on the hospital.

It is also a randomly selected thing: burn centres are pretty common, a lot of large hospitals have them.

I think this list fails WP:NOT as it's an indiscriminate collection of information which is not sourced from reliable sources. Guy (Help!) 18:05, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:57, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:57, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:57, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep. As was decision in previous 2013 AFD. Burn centers are NOT common; there is citation in article that the state of Mississippi was going to have none at all after one would close. It is cited there are just 123 in the U.S., vs. thousands of hospitals. In a pretty big area that I know about, there is just one. You want to get airlifted to there, if you want to live, rather than being taken by ambulance to somewhere else. It is a finite, knowable list, with two main sources described in the lede as itemizing them. The fact of there being redlinks or links to sections in articles is not relevant; what matters is coverage of the fact of being a burn center and coverage of it being a limited list. I think there is not any valid deletion argument within the nomination. --do ncr am 03:03, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Why would we take time an effort for a page that had a AFD in 2013 and all ten votes were to "Keep"? Burn centers tend to be unique and this list can be an important resource to this encyclopedia. If the amount of red links are a cause for concern, then many list of hospitals pages would need to be deleted. Whoisjohngalt (talk) 19:54, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per doncram. Rather than being run of the mill common, burn-center hospitals are rare, and mentioned commonly and prominently in the news media, so significant coverage is readily available. Having a list here would be helpful for our users to research and navigate, compared to a category. Bearian (talk) 17:02, 18 March 2014 (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.