Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/St. Elizabeth Hospital Heliport (2nd nomination): Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 09:32, 12 October 2008

St. Elizabeth Hospital Heliport

Fails WP:N and WP:RS. Possible merge, but if there is no article about the hospital, delete. The previous AfD for this one was based off of a general feeling about inherent notability which has been changed. Undead Warrior (talk) 15:54, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -- Undead Warrior (talk) 15:55, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oregon-related deletion discussions. -- TravellingCari 16:02, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to St. Elizabeth Health Services, which I just created. The hospital is surely slightly more notable than the heliport. Katr67 (talk) 18:58, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. I would totally oppose merging this to the Baker County, Oregon article as suggested in the previous afd, though it might make sense to merge the hospital article there. Katr67 (talk) 19:00, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The previous AfD, from two months ago, got it right. Ecoleetage (talk) 00:30, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Your rationale's keep failing to provide anything decent to these discussions. There is a CONSENSUS on the aviation page that states pages like these are to be deleted or merged. The last AfD had comments comparable to jokes. The last AfD had nothing right. Undead Warrior (talk) 02:18, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please focus on content and not contributor -- I am not the subject of this discussion and your attempt to put the spotlight on me does not help your cause (though, of course, I loooooove the attention -- who wants my autograph?). Your opinion on the last AfD is strictly an opinion, not a fact. And if there is a CONSENSUS (as opposed to a consensus) on another page about this article, then the people from that other page should bring their consensus here, yes? Ecoleetage (talk) 11:01, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That would be ideal if they would bring their opinions here, but, I cannot notify that project due to people who would call that canvassing. Either way, places of transportation are not inherently notable. Nothing is. (Schools are borderline) Every wikipedia article must pass WP:RS and WP:N. When there is a template to put on an aviation page that includes the three sources, the ones that are on every page related to airports, that should ring a bell that the sites aren't really the best. They are just directory listings. Wikipedia is not a directory. Undead Warrior (talk) 17:14, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Consensus shown by AfD records is that private-use airports are verifiable via FAA airport records but fail WP:N unless they have other WP:RS specifically about them. This one fails by those criteria. I wrote an essay expanding on private-use airports failing notability at User:Ikluft/essay/Private-use airports. Ikluft (talk) 09:32, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 12: / Line 12: @@
 ::Please focus on content and not contributor -- I am not the subject of this discussion and your attempt to put the spotlight on me does not help your cause (though, of course, I loooooove the attention -- who wants my autograph?).  Your opinion on the last AfD is strictly an opinion, not a fact. And if there is a CONSENSUS (as opposed to a <small>consensus</s>) on another page about this article, then the people from that other page should bring their consensus here, yes?  [[User:Ecoleetage|Ecoleetage]] ([[User talk:Ecoleetage|talk]]) 11:01, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
 :::That would be ideal if they would bring their opinions here, but, I cannot notify that project due to people who would call that canvassing. Either way, places of transportation are not inherently notable. Nothing is. (Schools are borderline) Every wikipedia article must pass [[WP:RS]] and [[WP:N]]. When there is a template to put on an aviation page that includes the three sources, the ones that are on every page related to airports, that should ring a bell that the sites aren't really the best. They are just directory listings. Wikipedia is not a directory. [[User:Undead warrior|Undead Warrior]] ([[User talk:Undead warrior|talk]]) 17:14, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
+*'''Delete''' Consensus shown by AfD records is that private-use airports are verifiable via FAA airport records but fail [[WP:N]] unless they have other [[WP:RS]] specifically about them. This one fails by those criteria. I wrote an essay expanding on private-use airports failing notability at [[User:Ikluft/essay/Private-use airports]]. [[User:Ikluft|Ikluft]] ([[User talk:Ikluft|talk]]) 09:32, 12 October 2008 (UTC)