Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Meridian Park Hospital Heliport

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 to delete/merge/rename/etc., default to keep. Merges and moves can be worked out on the article's talk page, and are suggested before another nomination. lifebaka++ 13:02, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Meridian Park Hospital Heliport[edit]

Fails WP:N It is not covered in multiple independent sources. I vote for delete, but, a merge to the hospital page, if available, would be okay. The only sources that have this listed just list the FAA and airport code, which is standard for all airports/heliports. This is a private heliport, which does not deserve it's own article. Undeath (talk) 01:04, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails Notability guidelines. The FAA source (database) does not confer notability on any airport as this is not "Significant coverage" as it is one of many (thousands?) airports listed. This and the 100 other private airport stubs need Significant coverage in WP:RS to confer notability. Merge would be fine. Aboutmovies (talk) 01:30, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. —Eastmain (talk) 01:47, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oregon-related deletion discussions. —Eastmain (talk) 01:47, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The nature of airports is that verifiable information in reliable sources about every airport exists, but is not always immediately accessible. Local newspapers and radio will have covered the decisions leading up to the construction of the airport and its continuing operation. Every airport is notable, and the fact that this article is a stub does not change that fact. --Eastmain (talk) 01:47, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I disagree with you completely. 1.) If local areas cover the event, provide the proof. 2.) Not all airports are notable. There is no way they could be. To pass WP:N an article MUST have multiple third party sources. If that is not present, regardless of the airport, it is non notable. That is the case with this airport. It is a private heliport, not a public heliport. It is to be used by one group of people only, not the general public. That tells me that local coverage was probably not present because it did not directly affect the public. This article is non notable. No sources. Those are the facts. Undeath (talk) 02:49, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I agree that not all airports are notable. Private airports like this are often not open to the general public and do not receive press coverage. Some are notable, but not this one. Aboutmovies (talk) 03:21, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and rename - change to article about hospital: There does not seem to be an article on Meridian Park Hospital, but articles on major hospitals are far more likely to be notable. By renaming this article to the hospital's name, and then creating at the very least a stub on the hospital, the heliport can then be mentioned in the article. Sebwite (talk) 17:59, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Meridian Park Hospital or Merge/Redirect to Clackamas County, Oregon--brew crewer (yada, yada) 21:59, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep notability of permanent transportation facilities is a general principle here. We could of course change it. See the much fuller discussion above for Chadwick Airport There's a peculiar idea we are bound by the general WP:N as if there were immutable policy for all articles. Its just a guideline--we are explicitly or by general consent in practice adopt whatever guideline we choose for whatever types of articles we choose. There is no "MUST" about needing third party sources for notability. I would not necessarily oppose a guideline that hospital heliports are generally an exception and not notable the way other airports are, since relatively insignificant structurally and operationally. But it should be a general discussion on those terms. Insisting for specific sources for these is fruitless, because when found the discussion will be whether the discussion is significant, or whether they are primary or secondary, and we will lend up disputing all thousands of them individually here, with essentially random results. DGG (talk) 03:26, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This is not the same as an airport. It's a helipad for a hospital. Non notable. Undeath (talk) 05:10, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Sources provided are all primary. I could not find any secondary or tertiary sources among its 31 Google hits. The article fails Wikipedia:No original research#Primary, secondary, and tertiary sources -- a policy. Also, in my opinion, not every helipad is notable. What's next, every wharf? Every navigational buoy? Phlegm Rooster (talk) 04:46, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- PS. Look at the photos; it's a patch of concrete near the parking lot. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 05:06, 7 August 2008 (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.