Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/LLH Hospital

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 delete. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 19:26, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

LLH Hospital

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

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

not separately noable, my merge to the main firm was reverted by an editor working only on that firm and its subsidiaries DGG ( talk ) 09:01, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. ~Ruyaba~ {talk} 09:14, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. ~Ruyaba~ {talk} 09:14, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. ~Ruyaba~ {talk} 09:14, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. ~Ruyaba~ {talk} 09:14, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Arab Emirates-related deletion discussions. ~Ruyaba~ {talk} 09:14, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Not notable enough for it's own article. It does not pass WP:GNG standalone. Skirts⁸⁹ 17:05, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Atlantic306 (talk) 19:13, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above. I also note that much of it makes no sense; see its discussion of "weqaya". It's only 11 years old as an institution, just one of many hospitals in the region. The sourcing is terrible. Bearian (talk) 20:14, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 22:20, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, have just added this afd to architecture afd list as the building looks pretty impressive, anyway its very shiny, "yes coola, we know that as a wikikit you like shiny things. Coolabahapple (talk) 22:26, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Shininess notwithstanding (Sorry coola!), I can't find much in the way of independent CORPDEPTH-level sourcing indicating notability. The article itself looks promotional - services offered, awards won - not that that's a deletion criterion, but the article would need improvement and the sources don't appear to be there to do it. GirthSummit _(blether) 18:17, 28 February 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.