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

Contesting

 * Your brief comment "The result was delete" implies that you have neither attempted to review the article nor the arguments for the deletion and have simply resorted to believe the majority's opinion. Wikipedia is not a democracy (WP:NOTDEM). Decisions should be taken considering the validity of each argument and not based on majority's opinion. There were at least eight in-depth articles discussing the hospital, which establishes notability. It doesn't matter if you can't read Arabic sources, Wikipedia is not an English-language project (WP:NOENG). Makeandtoss (talk) 14:38, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
 * , the outcome looked pretty clear to me, but upon further examination, I agree this was a closer call than it appeared on first reading. I'm going to back out my close and relist the discussion for another week.   pinging the other participants in the AfD so they're aware.  -- RoySmith (talk) 14:45, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your timely response. Makeandtoss (talk) 14:47, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't specifically remember closing this, but looking at it now, I suspect I just saw the nomination, and two delete comments, figured it was unanimous 3:0, and didn't read it in great detail. In reality, HighKing's delete was really just a duplicate of his nomination statement, which I didn't notice.  And, while you were arguing to keep, you didn't explicitly mark that as keep, using the dotted-bolded convention.  Not that the convention is a requirement, but it certainly makes it easier to spot, and thus draws attention to the need for a more careful reading.  -- RoySmith (talk) 14:57, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
 * The result was delete based on what? You gave no reasons like in the previous delete review. There was a new source published yesterday. The article now can have five sources; three of which belong to the leading newspapers in Jordan: Al Ra'i (Jordanian newspaper), Ad-Dustour (Jordan) and Al Ghad (governmental, semi-governmental and private respectively page 22), along with one of the most viewed online newspapers in Jordan (Khaberni). There was nothing to prove that the articles were taken from a press release., , , , . Makeandtoss (talk) 16:36, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
 * The existence of sources isn't enough; they need to be demonstrably independent, and also substantive in their coverage. The concern among those !voting "delete" was that the news orgs were reproducing press releases and/or each other's articles. Clicking through to the sources, it's obvious that those concerns are justified; this and this are very very similar, this and this are not substantive. The arguments to delete are therefore more persuasive. I don't give reasons in the closure when the result is clear-cut. Vanamonde (Talk) 16:49, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
 * The first two article are not similar. They have different information and are quoting from different people. There remains a fifth article that is independent of any press release. It contains an interview but there is secondary commentary in the introduction. That makes three sources which are enough to verify notability. Makeandtoss (talk) 17:08, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Their first paragraphs are essentially identical, and that is not a coincidence. The fifth article wasn't referenced in the AfD. I'm not psychic; I cannot determine consensus on the basis of arguments you didn't put forward. Feel free to take this to DRV; but I would recommend waiting a couple of months for more sources, so that when you recreate this, its notability is beyond doubt. Vanamonde (Talk) 17:14, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I mentioned here that I added another source. And you said it yourself, similar but not identical, and that's only the first paragraph which is about the date and location. The rest of the two articles are entirely different. And the third Khaberni source is completely different. Makeandtoss (talk) 17:18, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
 * "Similar but not identical" doesn't cut it for me; we're talking about concerns that the articles are based on press releases, not that they literally violated each other's copyright. Also, this talk page isn't a part of the AfD discussion; we don't typically read it before making a closure. More importantly, other participants are unlikely to read it, either. A talk page comment at AfD is never going to contribute to consensus. Why are you unwilling to wait for more clear-cut evidence? Vanamonde (Talk) 17:23, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Because most hospital articles on Wikipedia are not held to this high standard of source checking., . Here are two more independent sources, making the total at least five. Makeandtoss (talk) 07:28, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
 * That's missing the point; if consensus was different at other AfDs, you should have pointed to those in the discussion; if you had more sources, you should have pointed to those in the discussion. AfDs are closed on the basis of arguments presented; reassessing the closure on the basis of new sources doesn't make much Arguments presenting new sources don't carry much weight at DRV, either; your best bet is to take a break from this page, return with more sources in a little while and recreate it. Vanamonde (Talk) 15:02, 19 September 2019 (UTC)