- 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. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง ( talk) 02:05, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
Surya Hospital
- Surya Hospital ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
A recreated article which was previously deleted through PRoD. Fails WP:GNG, and WP:NCORP. Obvious conflict of interest. Also requesting creation lock (salting). —usernamekiran (talk) 19:27, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
- Delete: no indication of
corporate notability or
in-depth coverage. I endorse the
creation protection request due to the
conflict of interest and repeated re-creation. Unsourced comments like
super-speciality
do not belong in Wikipedia articles, the promotionalism in that article is borderline G11 material. Poorly sourced, again, source search turns up nothing to convey notability. DrStrauss talk 20:39, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 21:09, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 21:09, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 21:09, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 00:49, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
- Keep. Note that it is silly to complain about a PROD-deleted article being recreated; there was no previous AFD so no proper discussion. This source in the article, of Hindustan Times, is enough to convince me it is a legitimate and notable hospital. -- do ncr am 21:07, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
- @ Doncram: Hello again. An establishment doesnt become notable only because it has been once mentioned in a source (which looks like paid news by the way). Also, it still fails WP:NCORP, and WP:GNG. —usernamekiran (talk) 07:29, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
- It's now been speedy deleted under G11 -unambiguous advertising. Ajf773 ( talk) 07:32, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 21:13, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 21:13, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 19:13, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 19:13, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
- I don't see what happened exactly in the edit history, but the article exists again now. If it was speedy-deleted as Ajf773 says happened, that was improper, because an AFD was in progress. And it would have been proper for someone to restore the article / reverse the speedy. Again, it seems to me like a significant hospital; I voted "Keep" above. If the current article is promotional that should be dealt with by editing. -- do ncr am 18:34, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
- Delete -- yes the hospital exists, but its mere existence is not a guarantee of having an article in an encyclopedia. The coverage is shallow and incidental, or promotional in tone, as linked above. In addition, the SPA / IP activity has been concerning. For example, the IP changed the header of this AfD to Surya Hospitals: diff. It was a bizarre change; my guess is that it was perhaps a move to go around the deletion process (??) I cannot come with a different explanation. The same IP has extensively edited the article: Special:Contributions/219.91.152.73. On the balance of things, it's a "delete" for me. K.e.coffman ( talk) 04:16, 19 September 2017 (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.
- 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. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง ( talk) 02:05, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
Surya Hospital
- Surya Hospital ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
A recreated article which was previously deleted through PRoD. Fails WP:GNG, and WP:NCORP. Obvious conflict of interest. Also requesting creation lock (salting). —usernamekiran (talk) 19:27, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
- Delete: no indication of
corporate notability or
in-depth coverage. I endorse the
creation protection request due to the
conflict of interest and repeated re-creation. Unsourced comments like
super-speciality
do not belong in Wikipedia articles, the promotionalism in that article is borderline G11 material. Poorly sourced, again, source search turns up nothing to convey notability. DrStrauss talk 20:39, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 21:09, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 21:09, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 21:09, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 00:49, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
- Keep. Note that it is silly to complain about a PROD-deleted article being recreated; there was no previous AFD so no proper discussion. This source in the article, of Hindustan Times, is enough to convince me it is a legitimate and notable hospital. -- do ncr am 21:07, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
- @ Doncram: Hello again. An establishment doesnt become notable only because it has been once mentioned in a source (which looks like paid news by the way). Also, it still fails WP:NCORP, and WP:GNG. —usernamekiran (talk) 07:29, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
- It's now been speedy deleted under G11 -unambiguous advertising. Ajf773 ( talk) 07:32, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 21:13, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 21:13, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 19:13, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 19:13, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
- I don't see what happened exactly in the edit history, but the article exists again now. If it was speedy-deleted as Ajf773 says happened, that was improper, because an AFD was in progress. And it would have been proper for someone to restore the article / reverse the speedy. Again, it seems to me like a significant hospital; I voted "Keep" above. If the current article is promotional that should be dealt with by editing. -- do ncr am 18:34, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
- Delete -- yes the hospital exists, but its mere existence is not a guarantee of having an article in an encyclopedia. The coverage is shallow and incidental, or promotional in tone, as linked above. In addition, the SPA / IP activity has been concerning. For example, the IP changed the header of this AfD to Surya Hospitals: diff. It was a bizarre change; my guess is that it was perhaps a move to go around the deletion process (??) I cannot come with a different explanation. The same IP has extensively edited the article: Special:Contributions/219.91.152.73. On the balance of things, it's a "delete" for me. K.e.coffman ( talk) 04:16, 19 September 2017 (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.