Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Richmond Medical Center

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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 keep. WjBscribe 05:41, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Richmond Medical Center

Richmond Medical Center (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

This article has been flagged as having many issues. The major ones causing this nomination are lack of any real asserted and cited notability in the article itself (whether the place is notable or not I cannot easily tell from the article), and the total advertorial feel of the entire article. The other issues are as valid, but are secondary and are flagged in the article itself using {{articleissues}}. should the major issues be addressed I can be persuaded by coherent argument to withdraw this nomination. Fiddle Faddle 14:58, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete. I was skeptical that this article would need to be deleted, but more than one search I just completed looking for articles to cite that would establish notability turned up nothing of real value. While I would be against a blanket "hospitals are notable" position, I have actually started more than one hospital article with appropriate sources that establish notability. I don't see them here. Erechtheus 15:08, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep This is the first Kaiser Hospital, albeit moved to a new building. Also an element of a long running dispute about hospital coverage in poorer areas of the country There's been a staring contest between this hospital and another nearby, both owners wanting to close theirs down and let the other pick up the slack. I flat out don't have time to fix this right now. - Richfife 15:38, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment This is a tough one. What would notability require? I'm sure that local newspapers have written articles on them. That doesn't make them notable. Without an explicit standard, I don't see how you make a decision. That would probably default to a Keep. MarkinBoston 16:22, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment why wouldn't an appropriate level of coverage in local press make this hospital notable? In fact, that is precisely the sort of coverage I would expect would make this sort of institution notable. Erechtheus 16:28, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment using a {{cite}} (one of the relevant ones) appropriately to cite newspaper coverage is perfectly valid, and is exactly what is required. The other issues the article has also need substantial attention, but good citations would go a long way to redeeming it. I am concerned both about the cited notability and the article quality. Fiddle Faddle 17:20, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment. It seems we're on exactly the same page, then. I know of no citations that could be made, which is why I expressed my support for deletion. If somebody does have citations, it would be my hope they would add them. Erechtheus 17:22, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. I have a big apparent COI, but having worked at KP, I'm not sure that any of our (thirty plus) individual medical centers are sufficiently notable to sustain their own articles. As to KFH RMC itself, it wasn't the first Kaiser Permanente hospital, it was the second. In any event, notability isn't asserted, and I'm not sure it can be, all things considered, so delete.   justen   17:31, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. This is basically just another regional hospital in this area. This article is a result of the unfortunate tendency by certain editors to attempt to document every single structure within their view, which only trivializes this as an "encyclopedia". There has to be some gate-keeping done so that the whole thing doesn't collapse under the tremendous weight of accumulated cruft. +ILike2BeAnonymous 17:35, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletions. -- the wub "?!" 18:41, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:NOT#DIRECTORY - We're not a directory of hospitals. A lot of the stuff in that Richmond template needs to be deleted Corpx 19:38, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
  • STRONG KEEP if a high school with 500 students is notable, why isnt a hospital with thousands of patients notable, a high school just teaches one area of one community, this hospital treats the hundreds of thousands of people of west Contra Costa County, and its the first kaiser hospital, the longest running its the direct descendant of Henry J. Kaiser's healh plan for the shipyard workers of world war II, the original campus is on the national register of historic places. the hospital is in the news all the time because it is having to brunt all of the emergency services of the entire region since the doctor's medical center hospital in san pablo's emergency services department had to close, maybe the article should be given a chance to be rewritten and improved before it is deleted it is of note. but if we delete it then there is nothing and nothing may be improved. id also like to say if every episode of friends or monk is worth an article why not an important campus such as this? it is many times larger than say Berkeley City College in berkeley and is of similar size as the Bay Street Mall in Emeryville. let me find some more information.CholgatalK! 22:47, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
  • comment you said Maybe the article should be given a chance to be rewritten and improved before it is deleted it is of note. You have obviously not read the nomination. Rewrite it and address the issues and I will be persuaded to withdraw the nomination. A rwrite is not rearranging deckchairs on the Titanic, but a real, meaningful rewrite. The AfD process is designed with this action in mind. Fiddle Faddle 23:15, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
Comment on comment: Please tell us why you think they (other hospital articles) and this article are notable. It's not enough to say "I think they're notable"; you need to explain your rationale for it. +ILike2BeAnonymous 01:14, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
  • comment yet another reason i think this article should exist is that think about it, the name shows up in the news all the time and you might want to find more information about somthing you hear about in the news, do a simple google news search for the article's title and youll see just that, people know it by name.CholgatalK! 23:00, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep - This is actually a historically important hospital as it was one of the first hospital (then called the Richmond Field Hospital) built by Henry J. Kaiser to serve employees of his extremely important World War II shipbuilding efforts in the Kaiser Shipyards in Richmond (specific article: Richmond Shipyards) and vicinity. It was here that was the birth of the HMO, for better or for worse.[1][2][3] --Oakshade 23:05, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment The references, if they assert notability, should go into the article. Stating them here is interesting, helpful and not the full job. This article is in a woeful state. If you feel strongly enough to go for a strong keep, please edit it strongly too. Fiddle Faddle 23:18, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
it is the full job, it asserts the notability, you should try and be more encouraging because from my point of view your comment was very demanding. one more note why is there an article for nearly every vehicle that the Unitrans bus agency uses or have ever used and this article is up for deletion? wtf?[4] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cholga (talk • contribs) 00:06, August 26, 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment I think you are misunderstanding the task at hand. Asserting notability in this discussion has a huge point, of course it does. But this discussion is not the article. And it is the article that we are discussing. We have started the discussion with an execrable article. However well this discussion goes towards keeping the article by asserting notability inside the discussion (assuming it does so), if the article is not edited then it remains an execrable article. This deletion discussion is irrelevant to the reader of the encyclopaedia. A casual reader will not come here after this discussion is closed (if the article is kept), they will look at the unimitigated rubbish that the article has been allowed to be, if the article is not edited. You have encouragement from me in spades. Go to it and create a decent article from the appalling mess that is there. Fiddle Faddle 06:55, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
That's simply a content issue, not a notability one. Just because an article on a notable topic doesn't yet have content that proves notability doesn't magically make the topic non-notable. It just means that content should eventually be in the article. I don't support the "we have to destroy it in order to save it" logic. --Oakshade 21:37, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep; the standard is verifiability and availability of reliable sources, assuming that it's at least marginally notable, and as a major medical center in the northeast Bay Area, that should be self-evident. Antandrus (talk) 02:01, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep, Just because the page is a stub, doesn't it is not notable. Chris! my talk 03:39, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep as the entry is notable ( per Oakshade). This is the type of content that people look up in an encyclopedia. It is being actively worked on to improve it now so I'm hopeful it will eventually be a nice article. FloNight♥♥♥ 18:13, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep - part of Rosie the Riveter/World War II Home Front National Historical Park (although I can't tell if any of the original buildings are there any more). The hospital, as an institution, sounds like it's had a significant impact within the community. I'm not convinced that the listing of services is all that notable, though; some surgery (ha!) should probably be performed on the article to excise any bits of unnecessary content. --Elkman (Elkspeak) 21:24, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
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.