Talk:SwiatPrzychodni.pl

Objection to the deletion
In my opinion provided sources of notability are on a border what's accepted in Wikipedia. But given people don't tend to create secondary sources about webpages, I think the rules should be less strictly enforced compared to e.g. describing historic event.

In this case there's only one true reference of "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" - the article describing similar websites by trojmiasto.pl. I think lack of multiple coverage by secondary sources is compensated by multitude of references in other media, scientific journals and government documents. In my opinion e.g. fact that court verdict was based on data presented on the website, makes website not "one of millions identical webpages", but makes it notable.

Also I would like to point out that article's category is "Polish websites". By itself Polish websites won't ever achieve "wordly" notability (the moment it becomes noticed by the world, someone translates it). Given such category is accepted in Wikipedia, I think notability should be considered in a more narrow way. In my my opinion described subject is notable among Polish websites and the article should no be deleted.

If you disagree, please let me know if you consider subject by itself not notable or you think that if only someone out of the primary sources would create single secondary article, it would be enough to claim - it's ok to put the subject on Wikipedia.

--Pawelgniaz (talk) 14:26, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
 * , the problem is not whether the website is "one of millions of identical webpages" or not, the issue is whether we have enough information written in reliable, independent sources to write an article without resorting to original research. As written right now, we do not. However, I was able to find some more brief mentions in news reporting, which suggest to me that it may be possible for someone with more familiarity with Polish sources to find something substantial. As such, I'm going to take a step back and wait for another new page patroller to take a look at this article. signed,Rosguill talk 18:07, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
 * On review, while the coverage in secondary sources is extremely brief and better sources should be found, the fact that this coverage is spread out over a significant period of time (i.e. is not all about the same report) is a strong enough indicator of WP:NPOSSIBLE that I'm ok with letting this out of the new page queue. signed,Rosguill talk 18:56, 22 September 2019 (UTC)