Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fort Howard Veterans Hospital

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. Randykitty (talk) 17:19, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Fort Howard Veterans Hospital

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unsourced article, no claim to notability. Article is mostly about transport links to the place, and bottom of the barrel scraping mention of security patrols. TheLongTone (talk) 17:21, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - There is a great amount of in-depth coverage about this former hospital, even almost two decades after its closing, signifying easily passing WP:GNG. [1][2][3][4] That the article has too much focus on transportation is an improvement issue, not a deletion one. Bizarre that the spot where the British invaded the US in 1812 and where George MacAurthur lived [5] was even considered for AfD. --Oakshade (talk) 20:13, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The only substantial source is #1, and it's about the place not the hosptal.TheLongTone (talk) 22:39, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The hospital is the place and that piece goes very in-depth about the hospital anyway. All the others area substantial enough to demonstrate passing WP:GNG too. The primary reasons of this AfD, "unsourced" and "Article is mostly about transport links to the place...", are now non-existent. This should have been a case of WP:SOFIXIT, not AfD. --Oakshade (talk) 01:39, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Maryland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:26, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:26, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The location is covered in Fort Howard (Maryland), which mentions the hospital. There is nothing worth merging.TheLongTone (talk) 08:36, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That article is about a military fort, not a veterans hospital for which the grounds were used for later. This article "mentions" the military fort too as its a different topic.--Oakshade (talk) 15:17, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You were arguing that the hospital is notable because of the site. Which is covered elsewhere. I see nothing to establish notability of the hospital in the sources you give.TheLongTone (talk) 15:37, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The sources, as is this article, are about the VA hospital and go very in-depth about it. You've now completely shifted as to why you want this article deleted from "unsourced" and ""Article is mostly about transport links to the place..." now to another article "mentions" this hospital. I recommend you withdraw this nomination as the AfD rationale is non-existent and subsequent arguments are ever-shifting nonsensical. --Oakshade (talk) 16:04, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In depth? Where? I see a mention of a doctors work, a mention of some IT technology, a short piece about the site and a photograph of the building included in a selection of photos of other buildings. You have a very odd idea of what constitutes in-depth coverage. I have not shifted my argument, which is essentially that the hospital is not notable.TheLongTone (talk) 16:25, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not going to copy and paste the entire contents of the sources about his hospital just to prove to you the coverage is significant. Editors can look at the links, see the content and judge for themselves if this topic passes WP:GNG and if your AfD rationale is correct.--Oakshade (talk) 16:57, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not notable. While Fort Howard is notable, the VA hospital is not. It's not even notable within the VA system. Just because it sits on the site, doesn't mean the site's notability transfers to it. I like keeping articles and I always look for sources. I've recently changed my vote and helped save a few. But sorry, I'm not seeing it in this case. Malke 2010 (talk) 13:42, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The argument to keep is not "because it sits on the site", but because there is easily enough coverage to pass WP:NOTABILITY and its WP:GNG. Do you have any arguments regarding our actual guidelines? --Oakshade (talk) 15:03, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your hectoring tone is unpleasant and patronising. Your idea of what constitutes ' very in depth coverage' is bizarre: you give four sources above. One is about the site, and briefly mentions the hospital. The second is a thick book which mentions it briefly. The third is a bunch of pictures of the site, one of which is of the hospital. The fourth is abouth the site, not the hospital. I applaud your efforts to rescue the article, but I still see nothing like a credible claim of notability.TheLongTone (talk) 15:27, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

TheLongTone, your constantly being unpleasant and patronising and then attacking another editor for being unpleasant and patronising is not helping your case. You're just repeating your false "briefly mention" claim. These sources go into detail about the VA hospital, not just "breifly mentions" it. The example in WP:GNG of coverage that is not "significant" is a "one sentence mention." These sources, [6][7][8][9] are far beyond a "one sentence mention" or "briefly mentioning" the hospital. And sorry, but going into detail of a VA hospital function at this VA hospital is not just a "brief" mention. But I'll ask this !voter again, do you have anything argument that relates to our WP:GNG guideline?--Oakshade (talk) 16:07, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am merely poinin out that, inter alia, a single photograph of a building is not "in depth coverage". Making false claims does not strengthen your case.TheLongTone (talk) 16:33, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, the coverage constitutes much more than a "single paragraph", which by the way is in itself much more than your previously claim of "briefly mentions" and more than WP:GNG's example of what isn't significant being a "one sentence mention". While not your intent, you're actually making the case for this passing WP:GNG. Your constantly shifting your arguments from the very beginning of this AfD whenever you get proven wrong is truly not helping your case. My opinion that this !voter so far has not presenting any argument in regards to our WP:GNG guidelines still stands.--Oakshade (talk) 17:01, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have not shifted my argument at all: I hold that the place is not notable, and that your sources do not establish notability. Maybe I'm seeing something diffeent from what you see, but only one of them covers its activities as a hospital at all. I'd call a single paragraph a brief mention. And certainly not in depth.TheLongTone (talk) 17:30, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your Afd rational: "Unsourced article." False. "no claim to notability" False. "Article is mostly about transport links to the place, and bottom of the barrel scraping mention of security patrols." False and false. That's was your entire AfD rationale. Now that you've been shown sources, you've totally shifted to WP:JUSTNOTNOTABLE and claiming you never shifted. All of them cover the activities at the hospital. And of course a very in-depth article about the now-closed hospital and what the VA intends to do with it is about this hospital. You're fighting a losing battle here. --Oakshade (talk) 18:03, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As you well know, the substantial part of the AfD nomination was the non-notability. If I am fighting a losing battle it is trying to make you see how very flimsy your sources are: something that the only other person to have contributed to this discusion clearly agrees with.22:03, 14 May 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheLongTone (talk • contribs)

Your total stated rationale, not only "substantial part," was all statements that have all be shown to be false yet you continued this AfD. That's why I suggested you withdraw the nomination. That other person has said zero about sources or our guidelines. That's what my response was requesting they address that primary issue of our WP:GNG guideline. That person I notice in other AfDs also uses arbitrary opinions that has nothing to do with sources or our guidelines. --Oakshade (talk) 23:17, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mz7 (talk) 19:27, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non notable hospital. →Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 21:12, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Anything more than a WP:JUSTNOTNOTABLE? --Oakshade (talk) 21:33, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please do something useful instead of just harassing everyone here who disagrees with you!, Other than that nope. →Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 21:38, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Appreciate your honesty, but WP:JUSTNOTNOTABLE isn't enough of proper rational for deletion just like WP:ITSNOTABLE isn't enough of one for keeping. Over the last few days I've created multiple articles. Been quite useful, thank you. --Oakshade (talk) 22:11, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Current version of article has several references. Notability is not temporary, so even if it is defunct as a hospital it can still be notable based on past references, and I rather expect there was offline coverage of its creation and operations, as much as there is coverage of its denouement. --do ncr am 15:13, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Redirecting to List of hospitals in Maryland would be highly superior to deleting, per wp:PRESERVE. The list-article could/should be expanded, photos and descriptions about each entry, perhaps as a table eventually. It would be a start to begin to add description text to some entries, starting with this one. The list-article is complementary to nav-template {{Hospitals in Maryland}} and to Category:Hospitals in Maryland. Is the article creator active on other Maryland hospitals? Or other VA hospitals? If so the article creator could consider developing the MD or Veterans Admin hospital list-article(s) first, or concurrently with other maryland hospital articles, and keep the stubbiest items within the list-article until more sources are collected, to avoid controversy like this AFD. However, I do support this article being kept, i !vote Keep above. --do ncr am 15:18, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, List of Veterans Affairs medical facilities by state#Maryland does not yet link to the article. Mention of this facility, even as a defunct one, could be added there. Seems the whole list-system of VA facilities, current and former, could be improved. --do ncr am 15:23, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep subject passes WP:GNG, WP:RS and WP:Notability. ♥ Solarra ♥ ^{♪ Talk ♪} ߷ _{♀ Contribs ♀} 06:25, 24 May 2014 (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.