Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Abdali Medical Center (2nd nomination)

Add links
Source: 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. Fish+Karate 09:25, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Abdali Medical Center

AfDs for this article:

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

Abdali Medical Center (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Delete The hospital doesn't even exist yet (TOOSOON) and the building is still under construction. Not a single reference in the article meets the criteria for establishing notability and I am unable to locate any reference that meets the criteria. Topic fails GNG and WP:NCORP HighKing++ 14:29, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:31, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:31, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Jordan-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:31, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@HighKing: Hospital has been operational since July 2019. I have added other sources to supplement the article. Makeandtoss (talk) 15:03, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Bearian: GNG is established as there are at least 8 different sources discussing the hospital at length. MILL is not a Wikipedia policy. Makeandtoss (talk) 06:59, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Makeandtoss:, "at least 8 different sources discussing the hospital at length" does not mean that there are any sources that meet the criteria for establishing notability as per WP:NCORP. HighKing++ 12:06, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Makeandtoss, three of the sources are in Arabic, one is local news from Philadelphia about a company who helped construct the building, and the other four are industry periodicals. The hospital is now open, so there could be more in-depth coverage on the number of beds (many thousands of American hospitals are in the 209-bed-neighborhood due to regulatory restrictions), types of medical practice patient care (i.e. nursing practices), etc. Right, now there is just not enough information about the patient services -- as opposed the building design, parking decks, number of floors, and related information. MILL isn't a policy, but it's a guideline that I cite frequently as a heuristic. According to this PR source, the building was set to turn on its solar electric grid last week; there's no indication of a single patient being treated. This source claimed the hospital, with 200 beds, was set to open in July 2019, which contradicts the other source that said the lights weren't even expected to be turned on until August 26 at the earliest. Again, this is a small hospital in the grand scheme of things; there's no evidence in the artricle or online that it's even treated a single patient; there's no reliable sources since they contradict each other and they look sketchy; it's been struggling with delays for over a decade. As a hospital, it's just not notable; please convince me that it's notable for another reason, or find more recent English-language sources. I tried a Yahoo search as well, and found no evidence it had actually opened. In fact, according to their own website, it's still hiring staff to be able to open. See also WP:HAMMER. Bearian (talk) 15:50, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Starting to treat patients is not an indication of notability. Plus, citations to non-English sources is allowed on Wikipedia. Makeandtoss (talk) 15:54, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I had originally closed this as delete, but per the discussion on the talk page, I'm backing out my close and relisting this for another week.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- RoySmith (talk) 14:48, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep
From source 3, google translated. Makeandtoss (talk) 15:06, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Seriously, are editors not able to tell blatant churnalism, company announcements and press releases from original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject as per NCORP guidelines. In summary, not a single new reference added to the article comes even close to meeting the requirements for establishing notability. HighKing++ 12:06, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • The Venture source does not depend on this alleged press release. No text in the article matches a text from a press release. The intelligentcio source was not used in the article and the fact that it depended on the Venture Magazine's text does not make the Venture article any less credible.
      • The renewables source is irrelevant to the question of whether or not the hospital should have an article.
      • The Alghad article is again not copied from anywhere. MENAFN is a news aggregator, and the fact that it translated Alghad's article does not undermine Al Ghad's credibility. Arab newspapers rarely attribute articles to journalists.
      • This Alghad article does indeed name the hospital: Clemenceau Medical Center. It was renamed later. The article does have independent content as can be seen in the last sentence.
      • The Ro'ya article can be removed.
      • The Zawya article was removed.
      • This Alghad article is not based on any other article.
      • The Addustour article is not based on any other article.
      • The criteria for hospital articles notability are: significant coverage in multiple independent, reliable and secondary sources (WP:ORGCRIT). Significant coverage is checked as all of the articles discuss only the hospital; multiple independent, reliable and secondary sources is also checked considering they were reported in Alghad, Addusour and Al-Rai; independent, semi-governmental and governmental newspapers who also happen to be the most circulated newspaper in Jordan. page 22. Makeandtoss (talk) 14:54, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        • Response Here's the press release that the Venture magazine article (and others) faithfully reproduces or is largely based on. Also, the criteria for hospitals is WP:NCORP since it is a company/organization. This article is spam and Wikipedia is not a platform for promotion not a Yellow Pages (see WP:NOT). Some people don't seem to be able to tell the difference between churnalism/PR/announcements and the requirement for Independent Content (as defined by WP:ORGIND). Lets agree to disagree and let others weigh in. HighKing++ 20:54, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
          • Either way, Alghad, Alrai and Addustour remain to be credible sources that belong to the three leading newspapers in Jordan. Makeandtoss (talk) 11:08, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
            • I've no doubt they are "credible sources". But is not enough to meet the criteria for establishing notability. No attributed journalists means those references are highly questionable as reliable sources for supporting facts within the article, never mind using them to establish notability which is a higher standard again for references. As has been pointed out above for those references, the *content* fails the criteria for establishing notability. You may assume that none here are questioning the bona fides of the publisher. HighKing++ 17:21, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Per Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2019 September 19.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 07:20, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The nomination statement is false - the references are clear that the hospital opened at least a couple of months ago, therefore TOOSOON doesn't apply. The only delete vote says that there's no indications on how many beds there are, though the sources do mention there are over 200 beds, and that the sources aren't in English - which is not a policy-based concern. I can't imagine a 34-story hospital wouldn't be notable in any city. There are multiple good sources in the article, meeting GNG. The combination of these three references alone is very compelling to me - one, two, three. The article references have been significantly improved since the AFD started; there's some WP:HEY here. Nfitz (talk) 22:14, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Eh .. no. The nomination statement also says "Not a single reference in the article meets the criteria for establishing notability and I am unable to locate any reference that meets the criteria. Topic fails GNG and WP:NCORP". And "multiple good sources in the article, meeting GNG" has been shown to *not* be the case above (unless you meant to rebutt what was said above about the sources but you hit "Publish" too early?) HighKing++ 20:25, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • What do you mean "no" User:HighKing? Your nomination says "The hospital doesn't even exist yet (TOOSOON) and the building is still under construction" which is clearly not true. The nomination statement is false - please fix it ... and also remove the "delete" which makes it look as though you are trying to vote on your nomination, and has already created confusion! The article has been improved since you nominated, the sources currently there, and also provided in this dicussion meet GNG. Nfitz (talk) 13:33, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        • Thanks Nfitz, I'm not sure if updating a nomination is allowed but I've struck the piece about the hospital not existing as you are correct to point out that this isn't true. I always add "Delete" to my nominations and while I accept it is not done by very many nominators, it is not in breach of any guidelines. Finally, none of the sources meet WP:NCORP which are the guidelines for corporations/organizations as I have noted above. If you can link to any two references that you believe meet the criteria, post them below and lets see them. HighKing++ 14:10, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
side conversation about nomination formatting
          • @HighKing: please see WP:AFDFORMAT, where it says, Nomination already implies that the nominator recommends deletion (unless indicated otherwise), and nominators should refrain from repeating this recommendation on a separate bulleted line. What you're doing is indeed confusing, and in fact, was one of the things that led me astray when I originally closed this. Please don't do that. -- RoySmith (talk) 20:02, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
            • RoySmith, I have not "repeated this recommendation on a *separate* *bulleted* line". I have already had this format cleared by another admin some time ago and this is only the second time in years that someone has said it is "confusing". There doesn't appear to be anything in the guidelines to say that it shouldn't/can't be done. Personally, I think it adds clarity to the nomination. That said, I acknowledge that not many others do this. I'll have a rethink but if there are sufficient objections in the future, I'll drop it. HighKing++ 13:46, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There's already a long thread on your talk page about this, where two different people asked you to stop doing this. Please don't dig in your heels on this. The goal in all communication is to be clear about your intent. You've got multiple people telling you that what you're doing is confusing, and you're wiki-lawyering whether the existence of a piece of punctuation is significant or not. This seems like WP:IDONTHEARYOU. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:11, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • I didn't get a chance to respond before you collapsed this part. You've totally misrepresented that thread. Softlavender was being a dick (as is evident from the thread and from Floqeunbeam's comments) and took it upon themselves to modify my nomination without bothering to ask and then took over my talk page with a rant. Floq then said I was "probably" wrong but NA1000 said "It's all right to have the word "delete" in bold in the nomination header". That was 2 years ago in 2017. Now you say I'm wiki-lawyering and digging my heels in??? Please. HighKing++ 17:27, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • No. Both are guidelines and GNG does not take precedence over NCORP. In fact, NCORP and GNG are the same thing, just that NCORP provides specific guidelines on how to apply policies and also assists by providing interpretations and clarification specific to ascertaining the notability of sources for companies. If NCORP hasn't been met, then GNG hasn't been met either as that would be impossible. None of the sources meet NCORP, specifically WP:ORGIND. HighKing++ 13:46, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I disagree. There are multiple sources that are independent of the topic. GNG is met. Yes, there appear to be some churning of press releases in some of the references - but with 11 references in the article, that's not the sum total of the references. Does some of the text in some of the articles follow the press releases a bit too closely in an restrictive undemocratic closed society with a highly-controlled media ... surely that goes without saying. Nfitz (talk) 16:10, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • You see ... this is why we have NCORP. You say there are multiple sources that are independent of the topic (without pointing to any specifically - can you point to some please?) but then go on to admit that they're "churning of press release". Therefore the *content* is not independent (which is clarified/explained in NCORP's WP:ORGIND section in great detail, but not so much in GNG). And while your opinion that due to this company being located in a restrictive undemocratic closed society with a highly-controlled media provides for an exception, this is not part of our guidelines/policies. HighKing++ 17:27, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • NCORP is irrelevant - GNG suffices. You are twisting my words; me acknowledging that some of the 11 references in the article have partially used press releases, doesn't contradict that there's enough there to meet GNG. Our guidelines/policies have been met, with the possible exception of WP:WABBITSEASON. I'm not sure why you are making false statements that I haven't pointed to any sources specifically. And I'm unsure why you haven't yet edited the original nomination to remove the misleading, bolded, delete in the nomination statement, in clear breach of the guidelines at WP:AFDFORMAT. Nfitz (talk) 19:19, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • NCORP is just as relevant as GNG and arguably more so. An article cannot be said to pass GNG and fail NCORP because they're both based on the exact same principles. NCORP provides additional clarity on sources that may be used to establish notability. Also, check out the Talk page at AFDFORMAT where you can see that my nomination is, in fact, not in clear breach of any guidelines. Finally, I don't know why I haven't commented on the references previously. This from Khaberni.com is based on an announcement/interview by the Vice Chairman of the Center and is therefore not "independent" fails WP:ORGIND and GNG. This from addustour.com is also based on an announcement and fails for the exact same reasons. Finally, this from jfrnews.com is a PR stunt and fails for the exact same reasons. HighKing++ 16:13, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Per WP:GNG A topic is presumed to merit an article if:

It meets either the general notability guideline below, or the criteria outlined in a subject-specific guideline listed in the box on the right; and it is not excluded under the What Wikipedia is not policy. Subject meets GNG. Lightburst (talk) 14:54, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

How is this reopen again? How User:HighKing can you read that discussion at AFDFORMAT and think that you aren't off base on this issue? How is this not a snow keep - there hasn't been anyone here that agrees with you in a month. The only person who supported delete was User:Bearian, who hasn't spoken up in over a month. Have their views stayed the same, now that the article has improved? Nfitz (talk) 03:56, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep—I've added English titles to the citations that lacked them, which might help a bit in evaluation. I think what could push this over for me to a full Keep would be to flesh out the statement "...and develop it to a new medical-use project called "Abdali Medical Center", the first of its kind in Jordan." In other words, what makes this facility the first of its kind in the country; that is not made clear and without that this might be considered just another hospital. By the way "just another hospital" is not a support for delete - if I had by druthers, I'd have an article for every hospital as they are vital pieces of infrastructure wherever they are located. I know, though, that flies in the face of Wikipedia norms, so I'll just dream on and color just a bit out of the lines from time to time. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 01:42, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Ceyockey: Removed the sentence you objected to. Makeandtoss (talk) 15:23, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@HighKing:—I didn't object to the sentence, and it does not improve the article by removing it. I'd rather see the question it raises answered rather than making the article's subject seem even less notable. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 01:32, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Ceyockey: I removed it (and not Highking) thinking it was puffery but it was actually meant to reflect one of the claims in the article that the hospital is unique in offering patient-centered care. I added that in the article. Makeandtoss (talk) 05:53, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Nfitz. Passes WP:GNG. I find Highking's argument unconvincing. Here is a relevant Quote: this comment from Dodger67 about subject-specific notability guidelines: an SNG can never be used to exclude a subject that meets GNG. An SNG is by definition meant to (temporarily) lower the bar for subjects for which proving GNG compliance is difficult.4meter4 (talk) 15:00, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. While there is debate as to other criteria this article may or not meet, it seems clear that the article, as it stands, passes GNG. GNG is the bar articles require for notability. I concur, and originally closed it as such but the nominator requested it be reopened. Ifnord (talk) 14:13, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I wanted to expand my !vote after discussion with the nom. At the time, I did not look at the article's notability through the lens of WP:GROUP. It is superseded by GNG. Admittedly, I am no expert in Arabic. But, while not stellar, the sources do appear reliable, secondary, and mention the subject in detail. Through the lens of GNG, IMHO, the subject meets criteria. Ifnord (talk) 17:25, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note There's quite a bit of discussion above about the so-called irrelevance of NCORP and how GNG somehow supercedes it. This is incorrect. Both are guidelines and both are based on the exact same principles. There is nothing in NCORP that is new to GNG. Arguments along the lines that a reference passes GNG (but doesn't pass NCORP) are illogical and flawed and really only demonstrates that an editor does not understand how to interpret the guidelines. I have pointed out above that none of the references meet the criteria for establishing notability (pointing to NCORP as the guidelines that best explain why) and have been met with vague arguments that the references meet GNG and therefore NCORP is irrelevant. I simply request that the Keep !voters simply provide a link to 2 references that meet the criteria for establishing notability as per NCORP/GNG which, to date, none of the references are anything other than PR and churnalism. HighKing++ 16:13, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
From Wikipedia:Notability, "A topic is presumed to merit an article if: It meets either the general notability guideline below, or the criteria outlined in a subject-specific guideline listed in the box on the right; and It is not excluded under the What Wikipedia is not policy." The key word, for me, is "or". The subject-specific criteria exists to allow subjects which are notable but do not meet GNG criteria. I do not believe they exist to raise the GNG bar higher, if an article passes GNG then its ability to pass any other is not relevant. Ifnord (talk) 17:25, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Ifnord, yup, don't disagree with any of that. But there's a little bit of dis-ingenuousness going on with that argument. The arguments that "it passes GNG therefore NCORP doesn't matter" is deliberately trying to ignore years of experience of interpreting sources used to establish the notability of companies/organizations. NCORP exists to assist editors interpret GNG in relation to articles on companies/organizations/etc. It doesn't add any new criteria or "raise the bar". So .. same question .. can you link to any two references that meet NCORP or GNG, same thing, doesn't matter. HighKing++ 18:13, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Response As has been pointed out to you elsewhere by Elmidae, Throwing out WP:NEXIST and WP:BEFORE is without any value if you don't demonstrate what sources you found; i.e., they are empty buzzwords. I checked for available sources and found none that were sufficient to demonstrate independent notability. If you claim that there are some - present them here for evaluation. HighKing++ 11:39, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note to closer: The HighKing just pinged another editor to this debate (Elmidae)...why the ping? Note to HighKing you should leave it to the participants to determine notability. It is a small group WP:LOCALCONSENSUS who come to these AfDs however you repeat the same mantra in every demand for deletion - WP:NCORP. You also mistakenly say that articles need to jump two hurdles, WP:NCORP and WP:GNG. This is incorrect and it has been pointed out to you. The fact that you can ping those who agree with you only means the system is not fair, and it is only an unfair local consensus. Lightburst (talk) 14:28, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'll have to borrow that word ... niff- nawing ... I never saw it before but it is a lovely word, thank you. HighKing++ 11:39, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I first encountered the phrase when I was appearing before Blair Moody, Jr., who at the time was a Wayne County Circuit Judge. He went on to become a [[Michigan Supreme Court Justice. He died unexpectedly and at a relatively young age. After having Thanksgiving Dinner, he went out to rake some leaves. Every Thanksgiving I say something to myself as a memorial. He was a great jurist. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 23:02, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note Two more !votes but I've the same simple request as I've made since the start ... where are the references? Ceyockey's references have been shown to be churnalism and PR. It is odd that nobody seems to be able to post a link to any two that you believe meet the criteria for establishing notability. HighKing++ 10:33, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment @HighKing: I only added English translations for the Arabic titles of the extant citations; I have not added any citations myself (had to check to make sure :-) ). Regards --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 01:54, 15 October 2019 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Abdali_Medical_Center_(2nd_nomination)&oldid=921568060"