Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/St. Elizabeth Hospital Heliport

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. BJ^Talk 03:12, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

St. Elizabeth Hospital Heliport

Fails WP:N. This is just like my previous deletion discussion for another heliport. I support deletion, but I'd support a merge too if a proper candidate can be found. A hospital's heliport is non notable. Undeath (talk) 04:31, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Doc Strange^MailboxLogbook 05:18, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep it has its own airfield code, it is well formatted and sourced, all articles on places of transportation, airports, heliports, ports, ferry terminals, rail subway and light rail stations and bus stations are notable and of broad appeal.^MY♥_INchile 06:20, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The airport code means nothing. Not all transportation places are notable either, and no where does it state this. Also, this is not an airport, but a private helipad for a hospital. The article on the hospital is a better area for this helipad to be mentioned. Undeath (talk) 13:32, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

all transportations places are notable, by precedent, the types of places i mentioned never get deleted, even proposes or planned transit places are notable enough for articles to pass WP:N for the vast majority of discussions. If there is not enough content, then we should merge with the hospital article if not or if that article is too convoluted already keep this as it is. who know's this hospitals heliport could be of note right?^MY♥_INchile 18:13, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Places of transportation do get deleted every now and then. This is a great example of one that would normally be deleted. It is a helipad for a hospital. That is part of the hospital. It, by itself, is non notable. There is no precedent about notability in the sense that every building or infrastructure is notable. Undeath (talk) 18:33, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How is this less notable then a train station or rail station? While those may be high volume transport facilities, these are low volume critical community infrastructure facilities that actually save lives. There is much notability associated with that. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:34, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Real world transportation facilities catalogued in government databases meet WP:RS, hence WP:GNG.

It, in no way, meets those standards. It is hardly a facility too. It belongs to the hospital for use by the hosipital's helicopter. There is nothing notable about that. Easily fails WP:N. Undeath (talk) 22:43, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Is there a particular reason you're replying to everyone who disagrees with you? Jclemens (talk) 02:55, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is there any reason why it bothers you? Undeath (talk) 13:24, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It seems contentious and unhelpful. Not everyone who disagrees with you needs a rebuttal, especially those of us who don't raise new facts or new arguments, and doing so clutters the AfD. Jclemens (talk) 14:51, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Get used to it pal. Many AfDs include many, many rebuttals to help emphasize a point. It doesn't clutter anything up, and it's not contentious. It's what AfD does a lot. Undeath (talk) 19:30, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Helipads just take things to far. This "all transportions are inherently notable" standard that some editors are apparently proposing here would conceivably include parking garages. Merge/Redirect to article on hospital or Baker County, Oregon.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 01:45, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Heliport not helipad, the helipad is not notable, although if it is a mass produced model the model may be, this heliport is notable, it might even have more traffic than some of the minor cesna only class airfields we automatically give articles too. we are not a paper encyclopedia so this has room here, someone may want to research all the skycraft landings / airfields airports heliports in a general area to compile a report, maybe a urban planning student, heliports have a history to them too. as for parking garages, i don't think there is a single article about one in wikipedia, nor have i mentioned it, parking lots are not transit places however, park & ride lots are since they are transit hubs supporting parking, taxis, bus station, ferries, bike shops, small commerce, greyhound, eateries, trails, bike baths, carpool, and other facilities. i wonder what the worlds largest parking garage size is, now that would be notable!^MY♥_INchile 03:23, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep We could decide that such heliports dont fit the general conditions for important enough transportation facilities as a class, but until we do , w shoudnt be picking out individual ones for deletion. For any topic, we can adopt what guidelines we choose. DGG (talk) 03:07, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As per the cogent comments of our Chilean friend. Ecoleetage (talk) 23:54, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I think the case for notability has been made. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:34, 4 August 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.