Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/NHS Nightingale Hospitals


 * 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 in the sense of "do not delete". There is a very strong argument that this would be better-treated as part of NHS COVID-19 critical care hospitals, as there's clearly a large level of overlap here. However, there's also a good amount of participants arguing that these are separately notable, possibly as an England-specific effort rather than a UK-wide one. Numerically these two positions are split, and all we can definitely determine from this discussion is that it should be kept in some form. A merge discussion should be held on the talk page for interested parties to figure this out, but from the perspective of "articles for deletion" we can confidently state that no, it's not being deleted. ~ mazca  talk 01:11, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

NHS Nightingale Hospitals

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

There is very little content that can be placed in this article, as most of the information will be specific to each of the separate hospitals. Also, since the NHS is devolved, it is unlikely that the hospital in Scotland will use the "Nightingale" name.

I suggest that generic information about these hospitals can be moved to the article about the 2020 coronavirus pandemic in the United Kingdom, whilst we maintain the individual articles for each hospital. Elshad (talk) 09:59, 31 March 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep. This NHS England initiative is notable in its own right, as it has ample mass RS media coverage. Sure the non-NHS-England stuff (hospitals in NI, Scotland and Wales) should go elsewhere, but I think this article should stay as it is. It could be that individual "NHS Nightingale Hospital..." hospitals become notable in their own right too - as the NHS Nightingale Hospital London already has (though its article is suffering from a merge/don't move/don't deadlock at the moment) - in which case new articles could be spun off for them. -- DeFacto (talk). 10:30, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep: The umbrella concept—as well as the individual hospitals—has received sustained coverage in independent, reliable sources; WP:NORG is passed. ——  SN  54129  10:36, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 10:46, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 10:46, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 10:46, 31 March 2020 (UTC)


 * Merge with NHS Nightingale Hospital NHS COVID-19 critical care hospitals. As I've already said on talkpages, there's enough content for one article- which should cover all hospitals- but not enough content for every hospital to have its own article. No preference on which way the merge happens. Joseph2302 (talk) 10:51, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Change merge target in light of new article creations. Joseph2302 (talk) 09:23, 3 April 2020 (UTC)


 * Note I also added a note to this AfD on Talk:NHS Nightingale Hospital, as there's many active editors/discussions about the hospitals there. Joseph2302 (talk) 10:54, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment As implies on Talk:NHS Nightingale Hospital, one problem here is that the name "NHS Nightingale Hospital" seems only to be being used for the planned hospitals in England, not for the one in Wales or the mooted one in Scotland.  Merging everything into one article makes sense, but calling that something like The Anome's suggestion of NHS COVID-19 critical care hospitals perhaps makes more sense? <b style="color:#049">YorkshireLad</b>  ✿  <b style="color:#052">(talk)</b> 11:07, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
 * but this article was created to cover just the NHS England hospitals when the one at Ecxel was announced, because that is logical given that each of the UK's four constituent countries has their own independent health services, each with their own policies and priorities, and each under a different government. Why confuse the subject by trying to cover them all in this article too? I started a discussion at Talk:NHS Nightingale Hospitals yesterday to discuss the scope, please continue with this point there. -- DeFacto (talk). 13:28, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Just to clarify my intentions, when I created this article, my intention was to create an article for the UK-wide effort, but at that time I had no appropriate name. I don't think we need articles for each region: nor indeed every individual stadium field hospital. One article for the national effort, and one for each individually notable mega-field-hospital seems appropriate to me. -- The Anome (talk) 13:39, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
 * please continue that separate discussion at Talk:NHS Nightingale Hospitals. -- DeFacto (talk). 13:42, 31 March 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep per WP:NORG, and move merge this overall article to NHS COVID-19 critical care hospitals. However, each of the major hospitals (definitely, the London one, just for starters) will be independently noteworthy, and will deserve its own main article. Just for example, we have independent articles about both the University of Bristol Dental Hospital and Bristol Eye Hospital, two tiny hospitals in a provincial city that are still clearly individually noteworthy; are you saying that each of the vast, unprecendented Nightingale Hospitals are not individually article-worthy, in addition to the massive hospital-building effort that is unprecendented in British history and independently noteworthy in its own right? -- The Anome (talk) 11:11, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I oppose that move (which has its own separate discussion here) without first gaining a consensus to broaden the scope to cover all the temporary hospitals of all the four independent health services involved in the UK. There is a discussion on that here: Talk:NHS Nightingale Hospitals. -- DeFacto (talk). 13:36, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
 * As I say, the scope of that article was initially, and always has been, the national effort. You seem to be attempting to focus it down to a regional level, using the title of the article as a rationale, instead of changing the title of the article to reflect the content of the article. Do you really want one article for each of the four regions? If they are created, I think you will find them being merged eventually. -- The Anome (talk) 14:07, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: I've changed "keep and move" in my opinion above to "keep and merge", given the existence of the new article. -- The Anome (talk) 13:28, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
 * it's not a new article, it's another copy of this article, but without the all-essential history behind it. Do you honestly believe that the appropriate way to evolve this content is to bypass the talkpage and simply create a new copy of the article, with a name that was unanimously rejected for this article, and to add the content there that you couldn't get consensus to add here? -- DeFacto (talk). 15:08, 1 April 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep We obviously have a developing situation as field hospitals are built in various countries. Deletion is not appropriate as we should develop and adjust the content while maintaining an audit trail visible to all.  See WP:ATD, WP:PRESERVE, WP:NOTCLEANUP, &c. Andrew🐉(talk) 13:25, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Merge into NHS COVID-19 critical care hospitals. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:52, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Merge into NHS COVID-19 critical care hospitals as per Andy Mabbett. We now have three articles all overlapping; NHS COVID-19 critical care hospitals, NHS Nightingale Hospital and NHS Nightingale Hospitals. We only need one. If necessary they can be spun out/split if, and only if, enough detailed information comes out about some of them. The joy of all things (talk) 20:52, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Merge into NHS COVID-19 critical care hospitals, per Andy Mabbett. Having this article in addition to the UK one seems unnecessarily confusing for the reader, and there isn't so much content that it needs its own article. <b style="color:#049">YorkshireLad</b>  ✿  <b style="color:#052">(talk)</b> 22:13, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Merge into NHS COVID-19 critical care hospitals. Certainly notable but best for the reader to have one central article and spin off new articles if enough information later. |→ Spaully ~talk~ 01:45, 1 April 2020 (UTC)


 * Observation: this is getting very weird . At 16:47 on 31 March 2020 the article NHS COVID-19 critical care hospitals was created as an unattributed (copyvio?) copy&paste-based reincarnation of this article at that time. Just two minutes later this article's content was heavily trimmed to cover just the NHS England hospitals. Then at 18:26 on 31 March 2020 a move proposal to rename this article to "NHS COVID-19 critical care hospitals" (the same name as the new copy/paste article) was withdrawn as there was unanimity not to move it. Now there is support for merging this original article into the new copy/paste article. Surely if we are going to, effectively, delete one of these two articles, it should be that copied article, not this one, that is removed. -- DeFacto (talk). 08:05, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Absolutely. I didn't investigate deeply, which I accept was wrong. The fact that we have three short articles covering one subject isn't right, and if this is a copy and paste job then yes the other should be kept and this deleted. To be honest, the waters are so muddied now, I don't know which is which. Regards. The joy of all things (talk) 08:56, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
 * , are you trying to insinuate something? I had absolutely nothing to do with copying the page or trimming this one; if NHS COVID-19 critical care hospitals is indeed a copyvio from this page, then I'd support deleting that page, restoring the full content of this one, and then moving this page to the title I think is more suitable—or something that resolves the copyvio.  I didn't see the move proposal before it was withdrawn, but I would have supported the proposal. <b style="color:#049">YorkshireLad</b>  ✿  <b style="color:#052">(talk)</b> 08:59, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
 * sorry, no, of course I wasn't trying to insinuate anything. I was just commenting the weird morphing and confusion that's going on in this subject, and how one minute the use of that new name was unanimously rejected, and then, a very short time after the same name was used for a clone article of this one, it was being suggested that this original article be merged into it. There was definately no insinuation intended! -- DeFacto (talk). 09:13, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
 * , Thanks for clarifying. :-)  I agree, the whole thing has been a mess! <b style="color:#049">YorkshireLad</b>  ✿  <b style="color:#052">(talk)</b> 10:43, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
 * You cannot have it both ways. It's obviously not a copyvio, since all content was a Wikipedia-to-Wikipedia shift, see the new article's talk page. At most, it's an article fork. However, by your own criteria, this cannot be an article fork, since you have repeatedly asserted that the UK-wide effort and the "Nightingale" effort are distinct. You might want to note that I actually created that original article to cover the UK-wide situation, which you then decided to change the focus of to only the "Nightingale" hospitals, deleting much of the original article as out-of-scope. Following discussion on the talkpage of that article (see here) you appear to have acknowledged that your only objection to the creation of a separate article about the UK-wide situation was a lack of cites to show that this was an indepedently notable topic. Having addressed your objections with an abundance of citations to reliable sources, I then created the UK-wide article, substantially from text that you had deleted from the previous article as out-of-scope. Now you are shifting the goalposts again. Please choose one position and stick to it. -- The Anome (talk) 09:51, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I see you've now added some acknowledgement of the article history to the article talkpage. It was in contravention of the Copying within Wikipedia guideline when I wrote the above, before you added that to the talkpage. And no, you cannot use my opinions on article content or my position that anything we write needs to be reliably sourced, as an excuse for your actions. I have been consistent throughout in my view that there are four independent NHS services in the UK, and that each has its own agenda and priorities, and that each are setting up temporary facilities for the Covid-19 emergency. Rather than creating a new article when you fail to get agreement for your views, perhaps it would be better if you just accepted consensus and worked on the article(s). -- DeFacto (talk). 10:19, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Wow. Yes, I was remiss in omitting the attribution tag: for which apologies. However, now we come to the crux. There is no consensus whatsoever for creating four separate articles, one for each individual region. As far as I can tell, this idea comes solely from you. This initiative is a country-wide national effort across the United Kingdom, driven by central government. Yes, it's being implemented through the NHS regions and devolved subnational governments because these are the administrative structures the UK already has in place, but that does not make it four separate initiatives. So we have two things: a national initiative to build a network of field hospitals, which is certainly article-worthy, and individual hospitals, some of which are large enough to make them worthy of individual articles per WP:GNG. -- The Anome (talk) 10:27, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
 * you misrepresent me - I've not asked for four separate articles. My view is to evolve this article, but based on reliable sources, and split as as when/if necessary - as with the London article (again based on consensus). Read my comments in the thread I started on it to see that. And my current view is still that there is no centrally coordinated UK-wide temporary hospital initiative though, as each of the four national health services in the UK are pursuing their own agendas and projects on this, with the "Nightingale Hospitals" apparently only being related to NHS England. That doesn't mean this article can't be expanded to cover the other country's initiatives though, but through consensus-building channels rather than by new article creation and trying to supplant the original article. -- DeFacto (talk). 11:00, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Let's talk about consensus then rather than whether correct process was followed by whom - it is clear to me from above that the consensus aligns more with the Anome's view than yours. It is self-evident to me that there is a UK-wide effort to set up field hospitals. I don't agree with your stipulation this has to be split along NHS-nation lines. Be careful about your language, your comment above looks like an insinuation of brigading, when in actuality it shows that the consensus is against you. |→ Spaully ~talk~ 10:30, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
 * my concern here was about the confusion of cascading and multiplying articles, not the furtherance of my own opinion. The way to evolve content is through the talkpage, not by continually creating new articles to start again with. We can keep this article and evolve it with consensus, rather that merging it into it's own clone and evolving that. Doesn't that make sense? -- DeFacto (talk). 10:38, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Can I just point out that my position is that we should have (currently) just two articles, one on the national effort and one on the single (so far) independently notable hospital, NHS Nightingale Hospital London, and your position seems to me to be that we should either have four articles, one for each region, or that all efforts outside NHS England should be ignored? One thing I think we do agree with one another on: this article and the national one should be merged, and an appropriate title chosen. Since you assert that "NHS Nightingale" refers only to the NHS England hospitals, it obviously cannot be that: so why not use the title of the current national article? I don't care which way the merge and/or rename is done, only that the end result is rational. -- The Anome (talk) 10:42, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
 * see my comments on your interpretation of my views above at 11:00. -- DeFacto (talk). 11:04, 1 April 2020 (UTC)


 * Merge into NHS COVID-19 critical care hospitals, per Andy Mabbett. Regards, Anameofmyveryown (talk) 00:17, 2 April 2020 (UTC).
 * Merge with NHS COVID-19 critical care hospitals. There needs to be a single article about this, and that article must cover the whole United Kingdom. Whilst the new Scottish Hospital has been named something different, it is still clearly part of the same response. Just this morning this article from the BBC  clearly is highlighting the Nightingale hospitals are UK wide, this is not just an England only thing. If this article is kept and not merged, then this article must not just be about England, it must be about the whole United Kingdom. RWB2020 (talk) 06:19, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Merge into NHS COVID-19 critical care hospitals. No need for a separate article on just the hospitals in England when there is already a common article for the UK, which can link to the individual pages (e.g. NHS Nightingale Hospital London, NHS Louisa Jordan Hospital) if notable. 2A02:C7D:118C:2600:6856:146C:AE68:9259 (talk) 11:25, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep. It can't just be merged into the NHS Nightingale Hospital article (the one concerning the hospital at the ExCel), because there's going to be more than one, if things keep going as they are. We are talking what ifs and stuff so in advance, if the ExCel hospital were to be the only one, I'd say Merge into the ExCel hospital article. EVIL! Said Mermaid Man. (talk) 13:59, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Merge as per others. WP:TOOSOON to assume that there wil be others. Redirect to keep page history?  14:56, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep - I'd recommend keeping. As the NHS Nightingale Hospital are notable in their own right given their all gaining massive media coverage in the UK, with the first being opened today. Yorkshireboy2020 (talk) 15:48, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep, and close this discussion asap. Good content and significant history. The various move and merge proposals should be discussed, but this delete proposal has no merit whatsoever. Andrewa (talk) 15:45, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep per WP:NORG. Gritmem (talk) 20:57, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep per WP:NORG as this topic is getting more than sufficient media coverage. This is Paul (talk) 10:00, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment Clearly the situation has moved forward rapidly since this AfD was created. I don't think anyone is claiming that the information in the article is not notable (as the above few Keep !votes seem to be suggesting). And articles on individual on individual hospitals can be created when needed (as is already the case with NHS Nightingale Hospital London and NHS Louisa Jordan Hospital). The question is rather: is there justification for a separate article on the England-only effort (NHS Nightingale Hospitals), or should it be covered as part of the UK-wide article (NHS COVID-19 critical care hospitals)? Hence the Merge !votes above. 2A02:C7D:118C:2600:C11:947:6851:21FA (talk) 12:13, 8 April 2020 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. <b style="color:red">Please do not modify it.</b> 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.