496:
presentation. As for this discussion, I still believe the arguments from the last AfD (which was only two months ago) remain valid and that no cogent argument was made to justify removing an article that was closed as Keep so recently. Again, I would ask the nominator to please stop putting a disprortionate focus on my contribution to this discussion.
435:
Ah, but why the frustration? It is just a discussion on the merits of an article about a heliport. I know this is not a vote but a !vote. I thought I made it clear that the last AfD (which was only two months ago) offered a satisfactory conclusion to the previously-debated question and that there was
352:
Please focus on content and not contributor -- I am not the subject of this discussion and your attempt to put the spotlight on me does not help your cause (though, of course, I loooooove the attention -- who wants my autograph?). Your opinion on the last AfD is strictly an opinion, not a fact. And
269:
which are specifically about the hospital in order to achieve notability of its own. So far I don't see it. I'm not ruling out that it may exist. I did a Google search and found many mentions of the facility. Most seemed to be derived from databases of hospitals. Newspaper articles or something
452:
Your comment on the previous AfD was just in agreement to the previous person who had voted keep. The keep votes in the last discussion were trying to claim that all places of transportation have inherent notability and that the FAA directory listings were sources enough. As recent discussions have
495:
That is not correct. If you read the last AfD, I supported keeping the article based solely on the arguments put forth by our
Chilean friend. I felt his arguments were succinct -- and rather than repeat them verbatim or try to paraphrase them, I simply stated that my support was based on his
369:
That would be ideal if they would bring their opinions here, but, I cannot notify that project due to people who would call that canvassing. Either way, places of transportation are not inherently notable. Nothing is. (Schools are borderline) Every wikipedia article must pass
378:. When there is a template to put on an aviation page that includes the three sources, the ones that are on every page related to airports, that should ring a bell that the sites aren't really the best. They are just directory listings. Knowledge (XXG) is not a directory.
337:
Your rationale's keep failing to provide anything decent to these discussions. There is a CONSENSUS on the aviation page that states pages like these are to be deleted or merged. The last AfD had comments comparable to jokes. The last AfD had nothing right.
75:
410:
Just trying to help here... I can see UW's wording didn't seem to work for E, but does show frustration on UW's part. I understood the intent as UW asking E to provide clearer description of the reasoning behind the statements as
70:
510:
People are often asked about their points in AfD. It's an every day thing. You are being asked about yours because you are the only person who is saying keep. It would be the same in any other AfD.
419:
recommend. This needs to be a discussion, not just casting votes. Knowing the editor's thoughts behind a conclusion, rather than just the conclusion, helps us to meaningfully discuss the matter.
174:
135:
102:
97:
291:
Anyone who hasn't looked at the hospital article lately, please look at it again. Note I've never had any of my articles deleted for non-notability. (Or any other reason.)
106:
89:
200:
616:
to hospital article. No notability on its own, but an article about a hospital would be notable and it is worth noting the presence of a heliport at the hospital. --
699:
685:
657:
643:
625:
608:
573:
556:
519:
505:
490:
476:
462:
445:
428:
401:
387:
364:
347:
325:
300:
279:
256:
234:
212:
189:
163:
54:
596:
93:
392:
No one recommended canvassing. I pointed out that your argument that the consensus on the aviation page is irrelevant to this discussion.
48:. and none likely to emerge. Merging or not is an editorial discussion that doesn't require further AfD and there's no consensu to delete
17:
595:
specifically about them. This one fails by those criteria. I wrote an essay expanding on private-use airports failing notability at
467:
My !vote stands, and I will thank the nominator to cease needling me because I don't agree with him on this particular discussion.
85:
60:
355:
consensus) on another page about this article, then the people from that other page should bring their consensus here, yes?
222:
481:
I'm not needling you. I'm stating that you never really gave any point as to why it should be kept in either discussion.
722:
36:
154:. The previous AfD for this one was based off of a general feeling about inherent notability which has been changed.
721:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
648:
100+ years of history and it may be the only hospital in that county. I seriously doubt it could be deleted. --
515:
486:
458:
383:
343:
185:
159:
35:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
207:
49:
587:
Consensus shown by AfD records is that private-use airports are verifiable via FAA airport records but fail
247:
article as suggested in the previous afd, though it might make sense to merge the hospital article there.
412:
569:
501:
472:
441:
397:
360:
321:
244:
670:
653:
621:
511:
482:
454:
379:
339:
181:
155:
662:
Yup, understood. But we all know truth is not
Knowledge (XXG)'s test for notability. It needs
416:
29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
695:
681:
639:
604:
552:
424:
296:
275:
270:
from the local governments specifically about the facility would work if you can find them.
252:
230:
634:
of its own yet. Unless that gets fixed, it could be up for a prod/AfD of its own shortly.
565:
497:
468:
437:
393:
356:
317:
663:
631:
592:
371:
266:
147:
225:, which I just created. The hospital is surely slightly more notable than the heliport.
649:
617:
588:
375:
143:
123:
691:
677:
635:
600:
548:
420:
292:
271:
248:
226:
690:
Nevermind... I see you added the sources. So I'll withdraw my note of caution.
76:
Articles for deletion/St. Elizabeth
Hospital Heliport (2nd nomination)
666:- and is technically in WP-policy limbo without it. I might add a
564:
Sure! Everyone come on over to my place -- you're all welcome! :)
547:
Do you think y'all could take this discussion to your talk pages?
150:. Possible merge, but if there is no article about the hospital,
715:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
630:
Careful... the hospital article is new and doesn't have
130:
119:
115:
111:
436:
no reason to revisit the subject. I hope that helps.
316:
The previous AfD, from two months ago, got it right.
71:
Articles for deletion/St. Elizabeth
Hospital Heliport
175:
39:). No further edits should be made to this page.
725:). No further edits should be made to this page.
243:P.S. I would totally oppose merging this to the
8:
453:proven, this is not enough by a long shot.
265:The hospital article is going to need some
201:list of Oregon-related deletion discussions
353:if there is a CONSENSUS (as opposed to a
199:: This debate has been included in the
173:: This debate has been included in the
68:
597:User:Ikluft/essay/Private-use airports
676:tag if no one adds any sources soon.
18:Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion
7:
67:
24:
86:St. Elizabeth Hospital Heliport
61:St. Elizabeth Hospital Heliport
1:
223:St. Elizabeth Health Services
700:19:46, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
686:19:40, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
658:19:30, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
644:19:16, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
626:18:56, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
609:09:32, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
574:15:23, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
557:15:10, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
520:14:46, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
506:12:36, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
491:06:32, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
477:22:37, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
463:15:42, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
446:03:33, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
429:19:08, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
402:14:11, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
388:17:14, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
365:11:01, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
348:02:18, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
326:00:30, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
301:22:42, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
280:18:53, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
257:19:00, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
235:18:58, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
213:16:02, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
190:15:55, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
164:15:54, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
55:21:39, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
743:
718:Please do not modify it.
32:Please do not modify it.
591:unless they have other
66:AfDs for this article:
245:Baker County, Oregon
44:The result was
729:
579:
536:
215:
204:
192:
178:
734:
720:
675:
669:
581:
542:
354:
267:reliable sources
210:
205:
195:
179:
169:
133:
127:
109:
52:
34:
742:
741:
737:
736:
735:
733:
732:
731:
730:
723:deletion review
716:
673:
667:
208:
129:
100:
84:
81:
64:
50:
37:deletion review
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
740:
738:
728:
727:
711:
710:
709:
708:
707:
706:
705:
704:
703:
702:
611:
580:
578:
577:
576:
541:
540:
539:
538:
537:
535:
534:
533:
532:
531:
530:
529:
528:
527:
526:
525:
524:
523:
522:
512:Undead Warrior
483:Undead Warrior
455:Undead Warrior
432:
431:
407:
406:
405:
404:
380:Undead Warrior
340:Undead Warrior
329:
328:
310:
309:
308:
307:
306:
305:
304:
303:
283:
282:
260:
259:
238:
237:
216:
209:TravellingCari
193:
182:Undead Warrior
156:Undead Warrior
140:
139:
80:
79:
78:
73:
65:
63:
58:
51:TravellingCari
42:
41:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
739:
726:
724:
719:
713:
712:
701:
697:
693:
689:
688:
687:
683:
679:
672:
665:
661:
660:
659:
655:
651:
647:
646:
645:
641:
637:
633:
629:
628:
627:
623:
619:
615:
612:
610:
606:
602:
598:
594:
590:
586:
583:
582:
575:
571:
567:
563:
560:
559:
558:
554:
550:
546:
543:
521:
517:
513:
509:
508:
507:
503:
499:
494:
493:
492:
488:
484:
480:
479:
478:
474:
470:
466:
465:
464:
460:
456:
451:
450:
449:
448:
447:
443:
439:
434:
433:
430:
426:
422:
418:
414:
409:
408:
403:
399:
395:
391:
390:
389:
385:
381:
377:
373:
368:
367:
366:
362:
358:
351:
350:
349:
345:
341:
336:
333:
332:
331:
330:
327:
323:
319:
315:
312:
311:
302:
298:
294:
290:
287:
286:
285:
284:
281:
277:
273:
268:
264:
263:
262:
261:
258:
254:
250:
246:
242:
241:
240:
239:
236:
232:
228:
224:
220:
217:
214:
211:
202:
198:
194:
191:
187:
183:
176:
172:
168:
167:
166:
165:
161:
157:
153:
149:
145:
137:
132:
125:
121:
117:
113:
108:
104:
99:
95:
91:
87:
83:
82:
77:
74:
72:
69:
62:
59:
57:
56:
53:
47:
40:
38:
33:
27:
26:
19:
717:
714:
613:
584:
562:Comment back
561:
544:
413:WP:Consensus
334:
313:
288:
218:
196:
170:
151:
141:
46:no consensus
45:
43:
31:
28:
671:notability
566:Ecoleetage
498:Ecoleetage
469:Ecoleetage
438:Ecoleetage
394:Ecoleetage
357:Ecoleetage
318:Ecoleetage
650:Dual Freq
618:Dual Freq
417:WP:POLLS
136:View log
545:Comment
335:Comment
289:Comment
103:protect
98:history
692:Ikluft
678:Ikluft
636:Ikluft
601:Ikluft
585:Delete
549:Katr67
421:Ikluft
293:Katr67
272:Ikluft
249:Katr67
227:Katr67
152:delete
142:Fails
131:delete
107:delete
664:WP:RS
632:WP:RS
614:Merge
593:WP:RS
372:WP:RS
219:Merge
148:WP:RS
134:) – (
124:views
116:watch
112:links
16:<
696:talk
682:talk
654:talk
640:talk
622:talk
605:talk
589:WP:N
570:talk
553:talk
516:talk
502:talk
487:talk
473:talk
459:talk
442:talk
425:talk
415:and
398:talk
384:talk
376:WP:N
374:and
361:talk
344:talk
322:talk
314:Keep
297:talk
276:talk
253:talk
231:talk
197:Note
186:talk
171:Note
160:talk
146:and
144:WP:N
120:logs
94:talk
90:edit
221:to
206:--
203:.
180:--
177:.
698:)
684:)
674:}}
668:{{
656:)
642:)
624:)
607:)
599:.
572:)
555:)
518:)
504:)
489:)
475:)
461:)
444:)
427:)
400:)
386:)
363:)
346:)
324:)
299:)
278:)
255:)
233:)
188:)
162:)
122:|
118:|
114:|
110:|
105:|
101:|
96:|
92:|
694:(
680:(
652:(
638:(
620:(
603:(
568:(
551:(
514:(
500:(
485:(
471:(
457:(
440:(
423:(
396:(
382:(
359:(
342:(
320:(
295:(
274:(
251:(
229:(
184:(
158:(
138:)
128:(
126:)
88:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.