Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Braemar 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 keep. Clear consensus for keeping. (non-admin closure) Atlantic306 (talk) 19:39, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

Braemar Hospital

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

All sources are primary, thereby making the article not verifiable. Fails WP:NORG, potential WP:PROMO. WP:BEFORE check did not bring up anything of note. Kirbanzo (talk) 03:53, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment Even a trivial Google search finds the hospital listed in the New Zealand Ministry of Health's certified providers listings, as well as several articles in Waikato Times (and later, Stuff.co.nz) e.g.  . Verifiability seems not to be an issue. Bakazaka (talk) 04:25, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 04:29, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 07:36, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 07:36, 4 November 2018 (UTC)


 * Primary sources do not affect verifiability. It's not been hard to find quite detailed independent articles showing that it's notable, as most hospitals are.Rathfelder (talk) 10:32, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I've driven through Hamilton one or twice in the 1950s so I don't know it well but what fascinates me is the instant familiarity of the names: Braemar, Doctors' Hospital, Private hospital as if these were the names used by now extinct nation-wide charities (Presbyterians?) for their establishments before the 1930s arrival of truly socialised medicine. Is this an accidental survivor of provincial New Zealand with enough funding to raise its standards to government requirements? Eddaido (talk) 11:26, 4 November 2018 (UTC)


 * keep as notable.  Schwede 66  16:31, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
 * 4 of the 7 refs are from newspapers. Some of the text could do with rewriting as less promotional, but I agree keep as notable. Johnragla (talk) 19:58, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
 * agree with your reasons. Keep, but improve. Somej (talk) 09:03, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Keep as notable - should be a speedy keep. Nothing to debate about this one NealeFamily (talk) 01:11, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sheldybett (talk) 06:43, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep, per emerging consensus above. /Julle (talk) 23:27, 11 November 2018 (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.