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 delete. StarM 21:55, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Management of First Affiliated Hospital[edit]

Management of First Affiliated Hospital (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

A thoroughly unsuitable topic for a separate article that can never stand on its own. We don't do "managemement of" articles for organizations and companies, as such topics are almost never sufficiently notable in and of themselves. In this case all the info contained in this article is already contained in First Affliated Hospital of Xinjiang Medical University so this one is really an unneeded content fork on a subject of no independent notability. There is nothing to merge here and the title is a highly unlikely search term for a possible redirect. Hence delete. Nsk92 (talk) 14:47, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. —Nsk92 (talk) 15:00, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. — Frank  |  talk  15:51, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - almost CSD candidate under both G11 and A7. As nom states, this isn't an encyclopedic topic; none of the individuals has notability, and pulling them together in one article doesn't confer it either.  Frank  |  talk  15:51, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - I concur with the nominator. The information is entirely redundant with First Affliated Hospital of Xinjiang Medical University, with most of it copied verbatim. There is in fact, very little justification for the section to exist in the hospital article let alone having a stand alone article. -- Whpq (talk) 15:53, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. None of the people listed pass the notability requirements.--Boffob (talk) 15:54, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Not really an "indiscriminate collection of information", more like a fork, and excessive granularity on a relatively ephemeral subject: the management board of the hospital is likely to experience turnover long before the article is updated. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 16:07, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete As per nom. Not notable Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 20:52, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep This article is on the board of governors of the hospital may be my name of article is incorrect but the content is accurate.BurhanAhmed (talk • contribs) 05:54, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The name of the article has absolutely nothing to do with the reasons for deleting it and nobody has questioned the accuracy of the information provided. The main issue is notability of the subject matter and the secondary issue is duplication of information already contained in another article. This article is nothing but a administration personell list of a hospital and such articles are simply not suitable for an encyclopedia no matter how they are named. Even for major organizations, such as big corporations or major universities such articles are not done: at the most there deserves to be a brief mention of the main administrative officers in the main articles about such organizations. The only exceptions I can think of are governments of countries. Nsk92 (talk) 10:17, 14 November 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.