Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Healthscope

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. Article has been restored to version prior to the one that raised concerns, and sources have been found (though not yet used in the article) which establish notability. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 16:51, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Healthscope[edit]

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

Article manipulated by (indef-blocked) WP:SPA -- Healthscope Marketing (talk · contribs), with primary function of WP:ADVERT and WP:PROMO. — Cirt (talk) 21:55, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. — Cirt (talk) 22:11, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:13, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - although it looks like someone scanned a brochure into Wikipedia, the company itself has cites in WSJ, Bloomberg, Sydney Herald. It looks like it meets notability but I would see it stubbed rather than left as is. EBY (talk) 00:46, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:31, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 23:17, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 00:28, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete Most of the articles I see are in investment sources, many related to the company's IPO. It seems to be considered a good investment, but I can't say that in itself is notable. LaMona (talk) 21:09, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (cackle) @ 15:21, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Nothing in it really worth considering as knowledge. Chhandama (talk) 04:15, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
1. Frith, Bryan (2007-11-28). "Market grab gives $265m Symbion stake". News.com.au (News Corp Australia). Archived from the original on 2014-11-25. Retrieved 2014-11-25.
  The article notes in the first three paragraphs:
  ASIC, the ASX and the Takeovers Panel need to look at how Healthscope was able to put its foot on a $265 million, 9.9 per cent blocking stake in Symbion Health yesterday to determine whether any change in the rules is required.
  At issue is if, in a practical sense, investors other than Healthscope had the opportunity to participate in bidding for the shares, or if existing practices gave Healthscope an unfair advantage.
  Healthscope struck immediately after Symbion and Healthscope disclosed to the market that the tax office had destroyed their plans to carve up Symbion, and so they had called the deal off.
2. Bartholomeusz, Stephen (2007-05-02). "Healthscope offers $2.8bn for Symbion Health". The Age. Archived from the original on 2014-11-25. Retrieved 2014-11-25.
  The article notes:
  Healthscope is the second-largest hospital operator in the country, with 47 hospitals, and it also has a sizeable pathology business.
3. Evans, Michael (2006-01-16). "Healthscope sinks 23% after warning". The Sydney Morning Herald. Archived from the original on 2014-11-25. Retrieved 2014-11-25.
  The article notes:
  INVESTORS wiped more than $300 million off the market value of Healthscope , Australia's second biggest private hospital operator, after the company yesterday admitted its much-hyped acquisition of the Gribbles pathology business had failed to boost earnings as promised.
4. Porter, Ian (2003-02-04). "Healthscope happy to play the monopoly game". The Sydney Morning Herald. Archived from the original on 2014-11-25. Retrieved 2014-11-25.
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Healthscope to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 04:23, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I reverted the copyright violations added to the article and restored the article to the last clean version at 23:34, 23 February 2013‎ (UTC). The changes were a copyright violation of http://www.healthscope.com.au/ (archiveurl), as well as several other heathscope.com.au pages. Cunard (talk) 04:23, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Company seems clearly notable due to its large share of medical activities in Australia, but clearly the article needs a thorough cleanup. ---Reinoutr (talk) 14:21, 25 November 2014 (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.