Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Evidence-Based Nursing


 * 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  No Consensus to delete, Tim Vickers has greatly improved the article since nomination. (NAC) RMHED   19:45, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Evidence-Based Nursing

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

This article appears to be a collaboratively written essay that does not belong on Wikipedia. Paradox society  (review) 08:33, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete, agreed. This barely readable article (and its companion essay, Evidence-based practice, which probably ought to share its fate) seems to go on and on about nothing:  "Registered Nurses are expected to access, appraise, and incorporate research evidence into their professional judgment and decision-making as well as to consider preferences and values of their patient population." Associate degree graduates will demonstrate an awareness of the value or relevance of research in nursing. Registered nurses help identify problem areas in nursing practice within an established structured format, assist in data-collection activities, and, in conjunction with the professional nurse, appropriately use research findings in practice (Geri LoBiondo-Wood, Judith Haber pg.9) Thus, incorporating EBP into their nursing careers.  Text like this is typical of the elaborately uninformative prose generated by academic study of the human skill sets that aren't really well suited for the scholastic methods of academia.  The entire passage is an exercise in rhetorical tautology, and contains far more words than ideas.  Did anybody imagine that nurses ignore evidence, or the "preferences and values of their patient population?"  Are we any better informed after someone told us so?  I call bollocks on this stuff.  No amount of editing could ever make this baroque but meaningless mass into an encyclopedia article. I also suspect that this text involves someone seeking to generate buzz for a buzzword , and that also makes it a unestablished neologism and possibly promotional in intent . - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:25, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 00:19, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment Additionally, if you look at the edit history, the original creator of the article is called "ProfLG", and most of the content was added by this person and a multitude of accounts which ONLY contributed to this article. This has lead me to believe that the article was some sort of giant class project assigned by a professor at some university... Paradox  society  (review) 16:53, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment. Also note member check, a long essay about research methodologies, written in a similar style by some of the same people.  I no longer think that this is spam, but it may well be some sort of social-science class project; showing patter proficiency may be part of the point.  There might actually be articles in some of this material, but it needs serious rewriting with a general audience in mind, adding concrete context and reducing scholastic depersonalization. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 17:21, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment. Considering that this seems to include a lot of original research not published elsewhere, I believe the proper course of action would still be deletion rather than rewriting. Paradox  society  (review) 17:52, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Not sure I disagree with you there; the nominated article seems to be at root an essay about why nurses should study academic nursing research and participate in academic research programs. On the other hand, we appear to have a group of both informed and motivated editors here, who should be nudged in a direction of presenting more readable and informative content. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 20:41, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.


 * Delete whilst volumous, nothing links there - clearly EBN is not an important part of nursing, or the article was some original research / a class project. The term EBN gets many thousands of ghits, mostly of the professional education variety.  The level of detail is inappropriate for an encyclopedia.  And I come back to: nothing links to it. Josh Parris 03:19, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Not an important part of nursing? Tell that to the BMJ Group, one of whose journals is actually called Evidence Based Nursing.  Uncle G (talk) 13:07, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment Well, the topic of the article, as a subtopic of Evidence-based_medicine does seem to be properly notable, there are certainly plenty of search hits. Unfortunately this article in its present form is pretty far from a proper encyclopedic presentation of information. It might be better to delete this and redirect to the evidence based medicine article. Ben Kidwell (talk) 04:06, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions.  -- - 2/0 (cont.) 08:36, 15 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep. A fundamental part of modern nursing. Plainly notable.  The article could be improved by trimming it back to a single paragraph.  There is  much that could link here. There is an Evidence Based Nursing page that redirects to Evidence Based Nursing (journal) Lame Name (talk) 14:30, 15 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep, notable topic per, , , and . I agree it isn't particularly well-written is really in a terrible shape at present, but that isn't any reason to delete it. Tim Vickers (talk) 16:22, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Clearly notable topic. I fail to understand any part of the nomination. Isn't everything here pretty much an "essay"? Are we no longer supposed to write collaboratively? Why is it inappropriate for it to belong here? Article content is sadly poor and I have some sympathy for the "burn it and start again" viewpoint, but I don't think it's quite that bad. Surely one for the "can be fixed by editing" pile. Andy Dingley (talk) 19:39, 15 October 2009 (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.