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. and none likely to emerge. Merging or not is an editorial discussion that doesn't require further AfD and there's no consensu to delete TravellingCari 21:39, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

St. Elizabeth Hospital Heliport[edit]

AfDs for this article:
St. Elizabeth Hospital Heliport (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

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]

  • 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]
  • The hospital article is going to need some reliable sources which are specifically about the hospital in order to achieve notability of its own. So far I don't see it. I'm not ruling out that it may exist. I did a Google search and found many mentions of the facility. Most seemed to be derived from databases of hospitals. Newspaper articles or something from the local governments specifically about the facility would work if you can find them. Ikluft (talk) 18:53, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Anyone who hasn't looked at the hospital article lately, please look at it again. Note I've never had any of my articles deleted for non-notability. (Or any other reason.) Katr67 (talk) 22:42, 13 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]
No one recommended canvassing. I pointed out that your argument that the consensus on the aviation page is irrelevant to this discussion. Ecoleetage (talk) 14:11, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just trying to help here... I can see UW's wording didn't seem to work for E, but does show frustration on UW's part. I understood the intent as UW asking E to provide clearer description of the reasoning behind the statements as WP:Consensus and WP:POLLS recommend. This needs to be a discussion, not just casting votes. Knowing the editor's thoughts behind a conclusion, rather than just the conclusion, helps us to meaningfully discuss the matter. Ikluft (talk) 19:08, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, but why the frustration? It is just a discussion on the merits of an article about a heliport. I know this is not a vote but a !vote. I thought I made it clear that the last AfD (which was only two months ago) offered a satisfactory conclusion to the previously-debated question and that there was no reason to revisit the subject. I hope that helps. Ecoleetage (talk) 03:33, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Your comment on the previous AfD was just in agreement to the previous person who had voted keep. The keep votes in the last discussion were trying to claim that all places of transportation have inherent notability and that the FAA directory listings were sources enough. As recent discussions have proven, this is not enough by a long shot. Undead Warrior (talk) 15:42, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
My !vote stands, and I will thank the nominator to cease needling me because I don't agree with him on this particular discussion. Ecoleetage (talk) 22:37, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not needling you. I'm stating that you never really gave any point as to why it should be kept in either discussion. Undead Warrior (talk) 06:32, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That is not correct. If you read the last AfD, I supported keeping the article based solely on the arguments put forth by our Chilean friend. I felt his arguments were succinct -- and rather than repeat them verbatim or try to paraphrase them, I simply stated that my support was based on his presentation. As for this discussion, I still believe the arguments from the last AfD (which was only two months ago) remain valid and that no cogent argument was made to justify removing an article that was closed as Keep so recently. Again, I would ask the nominator to please stop putting a disprortionate focus on my contribution to this discussion. Ecoleetage (talk) 12:36, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
People are often asked about their points in AfD. It's an every day thing. You are being asked about yours because you are the only person who is saying keep. It would be the same in any other AfD. Undead Warrior (talk) 14:46, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Do you think y'all could take this discussion to your talk pages? Katr67 (talk) 15:10, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment back Sure! Everyone come on over to my place -- you're all welcome! :) Ecoleetage (talk) 15:23, 14 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]
  • Merge to hospital article. No notability on its own, but an article about a hospital would be notable and it is worth noting the presence of a heliport at the hospital. --Dual Freq (talk) 18:56, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Careful... the hospital article is new and doesn't have WP:RS of its own yet. Unless that gets fixed, it could be up for a prod/AfD of its own shortly. Ikluft (talk) 19:16, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • 100+ years of history and it may be the only hospital in that county. I seriously doubt it could be deleted. --Dual Freq (talk) 19:30, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Yup, understood. But we all know truth is not Wikipedia's test for notability. It needs WP:RS - and is technically in WP-policy limbo without it. I might add a ((notability)) tag if no one adds any sources soon. Ikluft (talk) 19:40, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • Nevermind... I see you added the sources. So I'll withdraw my note of caution. Ikluft (talk) 19:46, 12 October 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.
More