Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Al Noor Hospitals


 * 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.  Sandstein  17:10, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

Al Noor Hospitals

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

I had added a PROD to the article on notability grounds that was removed by someone who thought the references were enough to make it notable. What it ultimately comes down to though is that all the references seem to be about an IPO, expansions, and the company merging with Mediclinic International. IPOs and mergers are extremely trivial topics though that could apply to any company and neither one passes the notability guidelines for companies, WP:NCORP, anyway. It's doubtful the sources even pass WP:GNG for that matter. Since most (or all) of them are either primary, trivial coverage, or dead links. I didn't find anything that was any better in a WP:BEFORE either. Therefore in my opinion this article should be deleted or as an alternative at least merged/redirected to Mediclinic International. Wikipedia isn't a news site or list of IPO evaluations. --Adamant1 (talk) 20:11, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep I have added quite a bit of material to the article about this company which was the largest company in private healthcare in Abu Dhabi for over 20 years. I am sorry that Adamant1 does not feel my efforts were enough. This is the second article, that I wrote, in respect of a major company that Adamant1 has nominated for deletion. I am not sure what is going on here. Dormskirk (talk) 21:26, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
 * What was the other article you created that I nominated? It seems that what's going on here is that your creating articles that don't meet the notability guidelines. You should probably yourself with WP:GNG and WP:NCORP so it doesn't unnecessarily happen again. Especially pay attention to WP:ORGDEPTH and what it considers trivial coverage when you do. --Adamant1 (talk) 23:45, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
 * It was AVI Global Trust, another major company with a long history. Al Noor Hospitals has had loads of coverage because of both because of its IPO and because of the hotly contested bidding battle. If this company is not notable, then I am not sure what company is. There is no point in writing articles on companies any longer - however much coverage they get they just get nominated for deletion! Dormskirk (talk) 00:13, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but IPO's and "hotly contested bidding battles" aren't notable on their own. No matter the coverage. You'd know that if you put your pretty obvious persecution complex in check, stopped writing useless messages, and read the notability guidelines. Which I didn't have anything to do with the creation of. If you put a tiny bit of effort into reading the guidelines you'd also know that plenty of companies are notable. Just not this one. It's not on me or anyone else that you rather waste everyone's time by whining about things instead. Like I said in my comment, if your that convicted that I'm targeting you with these AfDs and "attacking you" then feel free to report me. I could really care less, but I'm done dealing with you. --Adamant1 (talk) 02:23, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
 * What an extraordinary and unnecessarily unpleasant message - just because I made the case that there are extremely good reasons why the article should not be deleted - whatever happened to no personal attacks? Dormskirk (talk) 08:23, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
 * The part of the message about whining etc is mostly in response to the fact that your also going off on my talk page about this and accusing me of specifically targeting with the two AfDs just because you edited one of the articles a few times 8 years ago. Which is completely ridiculous. Your sitting here chiding me about no personal attacks while your the accusing me without evidence of intentional harassment. Not to mention in multiple venues. I'd fine with you making a guideline based argument about why both articles should be kept, but due to your unwillingness to do so and your continuing of a personal vendetta I stick by that it's whining and not productive to the AfD. More so because your still continuing it here it on my talk page after I told in both places that I was done with the discussion. You made your opinion clear in your first message, you were already WP:BLUDGEONing it a few messages back in both places, and I have every right to tell you so. I've been pretty reasonable about it. Especially on my talk page. So just drop it already. --Adamant1 (talk) 19:22, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 22:37, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Arab Emirates-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 22:37, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 22:37, 12 September 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep: This looks like a well-sourced article to me, with non-trivial coverage. I can't access the article text, but a Financial Times article called "Battle brews for UAE healthcare dominance and Al Noor control" indicates a feature article about the hospital's place in the UAE health care industry. The Oxford Business Group also seems to be reliable and in-depth. — Toughpigs (talk) 15:24, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I call bullshit on that. The Oxford Business Group article isn't even about the hospital, it's about the health insurance industry in Abu Dhabi, and the this company isn't even discussed in it. Except for two name drops when siting brief comments by it's CEO that aren't even about the company. There's nothing in-depth about it and it's just another attempt by you to pass off garbage sources as legitimate. The same probably goes for the article. --Adamant1 (talk) 01:35, 15 September 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep: Passes WP:HOSPITAL. However, language of the article is full of puffery (WP:PUFF) which need to be sorted as per Wikipedia guidelines. -Hatchens (talk) 17:46, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Wrong, it doesn't pass WP:HOSPITAL because it's a Wikiproject, not a guideline, and there's nothing to "pass" about it. I'm getting pretty sick of people using WP:HOSPITAL like it's authoritative on anything or a guideline. Hopefully your vote is ignored so as to not encourage the people doing it. --Adamant1 (talk) 19:33, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I think that Hatchens meant WP:NHOSPITALS, which is a guideline. It's an easy mistake to make, and AGF applies. — Toughpigs (talk) 19:50, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
 * , thanks for correcting me. - Hatchens (talk) 02:00, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
 * , fair enough. Let the closing authority decide on that. A request, please be polite to everyone. We may have differences in our opinions but we have to show "compassion", "patience" and "good intent" to correct and share knowledge with others... exactly like and . - Hatchens (talk) 02:08, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Hatchens, I agree about people being polite. That said, there's an ongoing debate in Wikipedia about the authority of Wikiprojects and their authority on things like this, or lack there of, and people routinely cite them in AfDs. So, it's not like it would have been unprecedented if that was what you were doing. Also, Toughpigs has spent the last month and a half attacking me repeatedly over way more mundane mistakes then yours and also just in general. So, he isn't someone that I care to listen to about assuming good faith, or about really anything. I don't think anyone else should listen to him about it either. --Adamant1 (talk) 03:20, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
 * , calm down bro. If you have issues with anyone, then there are better ways to handle it. If that option fails, then please lodge a protest at WP:ANI. Bringing personal differences in an on-going AfD discussion actually disturbs the whole objective of having it in the first place. See, why I am telling you this because I myself have burnt my finger and learned by my own mistakes. And, one more thing, once you nominate an article, I would recommend not to indulge in further discussions as your reason for nominating should be more than enough to justify your stand. Let the discussion flow as per the Wikipedia guidelines and accept the outcome whatever it might be or else your approach can be easily qualified for WP:CANVAS. During my initial days, I myself got a warning for such approach at Articles_for_deletion/Dasman_Diabetes_Institute. Learn and evolve/And, don't get personal. (NOTE: I apologize to all for digressing from this AfD discussion, but I felt it's necessary to put my views across for everyone's benefit. Let peace and tranquility prevail). - Hatchens (talk) 03:46, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
 * , a few points WP:DISCUSSAFD says "AfDs are a place for rational discussion of whether an article is able to meet Wikipedia's article guidelines and policies." It also says "when an editor offers arguments or evidence that do not explain how the article meets/violates policy, they may only need a reminder to engage in constructive, on-topic discussion." It's ridiculous to say that the AfD nominators shouldn't involve themselves in that discussion or not give people reminders when their arguments aren't policy based. Ultimately, it has nothing to do with assuming good faith or not. Someone can cite a bad keep reason in good faith, and discussing things if they do has nothing to do with CANVASing or not accepting anything. It's just following the guidelines. Personally, I could really care less which way any AfD I'm involved in goes. As long the way it goes is based on the guidelines. That doesn't mean I'm not going to comment when someone railroads an AfD I opened though or votes keep based on bad reasoning. --Adamant1 (talk) 21:14, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
 * , I'm glad you are following guidelines and asking others to do the same but at what cost? As per the guidelines, you are going totally opposite when its comes to being "constructive, on-topic discussion". You are bringing in the conflicts in this discussion from other AfDs. Bro, it's a free world. You can comment on whatever you feel deemed to be fit but at the same time, you need to maintain a decorum in the forum. Editors like and  comes with an impeccable history of edits. If they can remain grounded, then, why not us? With an edit history like yours and mine, we are not at all authoritative when we compare ourselves with these two editors - out of which, one happens to be an admin. You should feel lucky, that the fellow has not reported you to WP:ANI yet. On the other hand, you have done more than a wonderful job when it comes to Wikipedia editing (as your edit history depicts). Don't let yourself get banned for behavioral reasons. We need editors like you who have a to nack to catch suspicious editing and paid pages. We need to stick together and act like a team. - Hatchens (talk) 03:09, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
 * It seems like there's zero cost to me. Anyway, ToughPig brought the conflict by citing WP:AGF to me when he knows he have a contentious history and could have just easily assumed good faith about my original comment. I'm not a fan of being the only one that should assume good faith, and he just as easily could shown me the same respect by not engaging me by siting the guideline when I wasn't doing anything. Also, who's right and wrong in AfD discussions isn't decided who has the "impeccable history of edits" or not or any other type of bona fides. It's 100% on the guideline based strength of the argument being made, and unfortunately ToughPigs just has an extremely midcore record when it comes to that. Which isn't on me. I'm not going to bend over backwards to be nice to someone who has attacked and railroaded me in AfDs repeatedly. I don't care how impeccable his edit is. You get what you give. Especially since when I reported a few other users to ANI for their verbal abuse I was told by multiple people, including him, that I was just being over sensitive and should just suck it up because getting attacked is just how things go in Wikipedia. I have zero respect for people that on the hand attack me, tell me I should deal with it I'm being verbally abused and stop being so sensitive about things, but then cite guidelines about assuming good faith when I take issue with something. That said, I acknowledge that me calling out ToughPigs probably isn't going to stop him from talking out of both sides of his neck. So, I'll give it a rest. Although, I'm just acting how everyone in ANI said people in Wikipedia act. So, a little consistency about things in general would be nice. Either personal attacks are par for the course or they aren't. I don't really care either way, but it's kind of mediocre that I'm getting called out for it when I was told to suck it up and deal with it when it was coming from other people. --Adamant1 (talk) 06:51, 19 September 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep I saw this listed at WP:MED/AA. It is not usual for an article about a hospital system serving about a million people to be nominated for deletion.  While the article would benefit from a re-write, there is enough here to convince me that this healthcare system is notable.  Notability is not temporary, so the fact that the company is now part of another company is irrelevant.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:34, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I never said the company wasn't notable just because it's part of another company. Good job miss quoting me and not actually addressing any of the points I made in the nomination though. --Adamant1 (talk) 03:30, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Sure, I can be detailed: You say that all coverage of IPOs are defined as trivial coveragage in NCORP, which does not mention IPOs at all; you say that all coverage of expansions and mergers are defined as trivial coverage in NCORP, which actually says to ignore "standard notices, brief announcements, and routine coverage" of expansions and mergers, not to discount all such sources entirely; you say that "most (or all) of them are either primary, trivial coverage, or dead links", but (a) Reuters published about 300 words on them in this article, which is WP:SIGCOV, secondary, and independent, (b) The Financial Times wrote 400 words on them in this article, which is also SIGCOV, secondary, and independent, and incidentally calls them "The largest private healthcare provider in Abu Dhabi", which is another indication that the subject is notable; (c) dead links don't mean that the subject isn't notable, since the rule is 'written about', not 'written about online and easy to find in the first page of Google Search results'.  By the way, a search in ProQuest for "Al Noor Hospitals" (quoted phrase) found more than two thousand full-text sources (2,258, to be exact) that mention this hospital system.  I imagine that with more than two thousand sources available, we can find enough reliable information to write an article.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:03, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Wrong, NCORP says trivial coverage includes "of a capital transaction, such as raised capital" and last time I checked that's the whole point in doing an IPO. Obviously CORP doesn't have to include every way a company can raise capital in minuet detail for it to qualify as trivial coverage. Just like it doesn't have to be explicit about crowd funding campaigns or specifically call every crowd founding platform out by name for them to be trivial topics. Otherwise if every specific way someone can raise capital has to be mentioned by name there would be zero point in even having the guideline. One of the articles about the IPO is even titled "Al Noor Hospitals IPO raises $342m" You can't legitimately claim that an article about them raising $342m isn't about raised capital. Also no where did I say to ignore all sources about expansions. Context matters though and the point was that it's routine/WP:MILL for a hospital group to more build hospitals. That's literally what they do and I'm certain is what's behind the spirit of the part of NCORP about it. There's absolutely nothing notable about "company that builds hospitals builds a hospital." Which is likely the reason why of the main sources about it is "Construction Weekly." BTW, I'm pretty sure there's a cavit somewhere in the notability guidelines about being careful about trade (or niche) magazines and the like. This isn't something like Apple selling iPhones in China after a twenty year battle to though. Again, it's about a company that builds hospitals building hospitals.


 * Also, I wasn't aware that "The Financial Times" opinion on who the top companies in the world were guaranteed said company an article (or really meant anything about notability). I'll have to add that to my repertoire <--Sarcasm. Lastly, about the dead links all I will say is that you know full well "keep because sources exists" isn't a good argument. While at the end of the day I could really give a crap if they are "dead", I do care if they qualify as WP:SIGCOV or not. Which can't be determined if they are dead. Sorry, but I don't feel like giving the COI SPA who created the article (or whatever probably COI editor added them later) the benefit of the doubt. Maybe if it wasn't an article about a company, which has a higher bar then some other subjects, and didn't have COI edits to it. Even if that wasn't the case though, as I've said repeatedly and everyone with any kind of integrity agrees with, this isn't just about the existance "sources." Otherwise, all of us would just be citing Twitter or Facebook repeatedly. --Adamant1 (talk) 09:43, 23 September 2020 (UTC)


 * 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.