Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/National Institute for Health Protection


 * 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 speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Cloudbound (talk) 13:18, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

National Institute for Health Protection

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Too soon. Article begins "According to the Telegraph..." and other news outlets are also using this source. There has not been an official announcement of this organisation yet and the name could be a working title. This should be deleted or moved to draft space until something formal is released. Cloudbound (talk) 21:47, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:52, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:52, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

This page is obviously not a page where the information is set in stone. That is why the page clearly states that this is a proposed plan based on information collected from The Telegraph, a reliable source. Reuters and The New York Times have also commented on this proposal adding to its legitimacy. With this claim that this page should be deleted or drafted because the information is based on speculation is nonsense. By that logic any page that is based on speculation such as that UFO’s exist should also be removed from Wikipedia until solid information either proving or disproving the speculation is published. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MaxWBooth (talk • contribs) 22:33, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
 * There's no doubting the integrity of the Telegraph, but there has been no formal announcement yet so an article about this organisation is premature. Cloudbound (talk) 23:26, 16 August 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep. By the time this discussion is concluded there will be plenty of information to fill it.  Already on BBC.  Since when do we need formal announcements?  We need multiple reputable sources and they are already proliferating.  Rathfelder (talk) 17:01, 17 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep: It's going to be launched on Tuesday according to this BBC News story and named the Health Protection Institute, so if that is the name they've decided on then we'll need to do a page move as well. This is Paul (talk) 23:11, 17 August 2020 (UTC)
 * It's possible that the BBC may be going with a shorter version of the name while the name officially remains the National Institute for Health Protection. Either way, I'd say Keep the page as the amount of coverage about its launch today is enough to make it notable. Andysmith248 (talk) 10:24, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

UTC)
 * Keep The article was fired up WP:TOOSOON and in haste....however, as above, the new body does exist and the new body will be in place before the end of the month. More than adequately notable, at least. doktorb wordsdeeds 05:00, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep Coverage exists, the organisation is going to exist, sufficiently notable. It’s annoying me that someone has already changed Public Health England to be in the past tense, however, as the organisation still exists and is functioning as of now. Fish +Karate 11:57, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Snow Keep Obviously notable, already in existence and officially confirmed.Pontificalibus 12:30, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep It's currently being reported by several good news sources, and seems extremely likely to go ahead. Wurbl (User talk:Wurbl) 12:34, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep however we should also recognise the wording of the announcement does not say that PHE is being dissolved, only that it is being "brought under" Baroness Dido and her new NIHP. It is unclear what will happen in reality to PHE as little has been discussed as to the overall structure / hierarchy. So we should not be rushing round making things past-tense until it is clear what the restructure is doing. Koncorde (talk) 13:14, 18 August 2020 (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.