Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/BryanLGH Health System

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. No arguments for deletion aside from the nominator. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:44, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

BryanLGH Health System

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

Fails WP:ORG. Google News search reveals very little coverage, and none of it significant or in-depth. Bbb23 (talk) 01:23, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nebraska-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:48, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:49, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:49, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep ~~but rename to Bryan Health~~ per this recent news item. The large number of mentions in the local press suggest the importance of this center to its community. The health system resulted from a merger of two 80-year-old hospitals [1] and has been expanding. Furthermore, the health system operates a college which awards undergraduate and graduate degrees; per Wikipedia usual practice that college would be considered notable. --MelanieN (talk) 14:40, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

On second thought, don't rename it yet; the name change won't take effect until October. I have updated the article and added references. --MelanieN (talk) 15:17, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:32, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -Scottywong | spill the beans _ 15:12, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Its pre-merger components, have sufficient history (which I have only perused). The institution, in its current inception, meets criteria for notability.Novangelis (talk) 15:17, 8 April 2012 (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.