Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/MetroWest Medical Center

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was KEEP. dbenbenn | talk 14:34, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

[edit] MetroWest Medical Center

No evidence that this is a notable hospital. Cdc 01:37, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, not notable. Gazpacho 02:41, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• KeepPhilip 03:52, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, article needs expansion. Megan1967 05:23, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Megan's trolling of the VfD pages has been tiresome. Delete this article. We cannot have an article on every building in the world!!!!! RickK 05:50, Feb 1, 2005 (UTC)
  • I agree that we can't have an article on every building (and I have argued that in the past), nonetheless it is a large teaching hospital. Since the majority of votes following mine appear in principal to agree with my keep vote, it can hardly be called trolling. Have a nice day Rick. Megan1967 01:09, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Merge into Framingham, Massachusetts and delete - Skysmith 09:52, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • That would be silly, since it's two hospitals, one of which isn't in that city. iMeowbot~Mw 14:19, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Oh no, that'd just be the end of the world if we carried interesting information on every building in the world, now wouldn't it!!!!! The end is nigh!!!!! Seriously. Relax. —RaD Man (talk) 10:08, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, notable teaching hospital. iMeowbot~Mw 14:19, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Samaritan 15:49, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, good large-sized hospitial. Besides, the point of wikipedia is to grow the site, not take out things that are good Bob123 18:45, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and allow for organic growth. Stop senseless deletionism. GRider\^talk 22:43, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Notability not established. Stop the senseless inclusionism. Indrian 05:54, Feb 2, 2005 (UTC)
  • If you don't think creating a vast reference resource is worthwhile, don't stress yourself out by visiting Wikipedia Philip 02:13, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • If you don't think creating an excellent, well-written, and reputable encyclopedia is worthwhile, don't stress yourself out by visiting Wikipedia. Indrian 06:06, Feb 5, 2005 (UTC)
      • How do you get stressed by including things?
        • A fair question, but I would also have to ask how one gets stressed deleting things. I certainly do not. Indrian 03:49, Feb 6, 2005 (UTC)
          • And therein lies the problem.--Centauri 07:24, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
            • I think the real problem here is a failure to remember what, exactly, an encyclopedia is. An encyclopedia is a general reference work that highlights and synthesizes important people, places, things, and ideas. It is derived almost exclusively from secondary sources and provides an overview of the critical objects either in all fields of study, as in Britannica or Wikipedia, or in a specific area, such as the Encyclopedia of Military History. Inherent in an encyclopedia's mission to highlight and syntesize is the necessity of making distinctions between what is important and what is not, i.e. notability, which will always be a subjective decision, but one that every encyclopedia editor is called upon to make (in this case, the editors would be the entire wikipedia community). Now, there are many that say that wikipedia is not paper when they justify keeping trivial information, but this should not make wikipedia a junkyard. It is true that wikipedia can include far more information than a typical encyclopedia can, but I see this more as allowing us to go from the level of notable to the whole of human history, which is what Britannica focuses on, to the level of notable in every little sub-field of human exploration. Thus, we can have notable schools, hospitals, sports figures, congressmen, MPs, churches, authors, etc. that would be left out of Britannica for space reasons. If every hospital were to be included, however, then the entire point of an encyclopedia would be lost, for it would no longer be highlighting. An encyclopedia article needs to place its subject in proper context, and that is impossible when there is little distinction made between the subject and similar institutions. There is a reason that the Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not page states that this is not a general database or a yellow pages: an encyclopedia highlights and synthesizes. If wikipedia were meant to include everything, there would not be a wiktionary or a wikisource, or a wikibooks, or any other wikiproject save this one. If wikipedia becomes a source for trivial information that is hard to keep up to date, verifiable, and accurate, or continues to have longer articles on the Star Trek versus Star Wars debate then on Kaiser Wilhelm I, the scholarly community will never take it seriously and no one will use it as a reference for research. Thus, wikipedia would be a monumental failure. This is a thought that should cause stress for everybody on the project. Indrian 18:00, Feb 6, 2005 (UTC)

You are indeed correct. The real problem here is a failure to remember what, exactly, an encyclopedia is. Encyclopedias were conceived and intended as organized compendia of ALL knowledge - not just "select" knowledge or so-called "notable" knowledge (whatever that is supposed to mean). Nothing has changed in the past several thousand years, other than the technological capacity to make real the actual intention of the early encyclopedists. Those who promote the notion that "some knowledge is more important than other knowledge" would do well to remember that "importance" is a largely subjective matter (as the above Star Wars vs Kaiser Wilhelm II example shows), and that it is right and proper that an evolving project such as Wikipedia reflect the concerns, interests and obsessions of those who create it and the times in which they live, rather than presenting itself as the informational equivalent of a constipated Victorian maiden aunt. --Centauri 22:06, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• Keep. Notable teaching hospital, IMO. Segekihei 01:05, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Hospitals are inherently notable and encyclopedic.--Centauri 07:26, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. It resulted from the merger of the Framingham Union Hospital and a smaller hospital in Natick, which is the next town. It is run by a for-profit hospital corporation. In fact, there are news reports that it is up for sale, apparently because it isn't profitable enough. I'm not sure that it is a teaching hospital. On the direct route through the western Boston suburbs to Worcester, it probably is in fact the biggest hospital. People in my family have been there a few times, and, you know, it's just a typical suburban medium-to-large-sized hospital. But there are dozens of hospitals in the Boston area, of similar size or larger, several of which are world-famous. This is far from being one of the famous ones. It isn't a Mass General or Lahey Clinic.--BM 17:36, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.