Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Patient safety and 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   delete. v/r - TP 02:48, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Patient safety and nursing

 * – ( View AfD View log )

I think this kinda overlaps a lot of other articles. It's hard to read, listy, unsourced and redundant. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 03:52, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete. Agreed- this overlaps a LOT of different articles, most notably patient safety itself. It also reads like something someone wrote for a class project and then uploaded to Wikipedia. This is already covered wonderfully at patient safety, so I don't really see the need for an article that's specifically aimed towards nurses, yet doesn't seem to cover the subject as well as the patient safety article does. Tokyogirl79 (talk) 07:19, 30 November 2011 (UTC)tokyogirl79
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions.  —Tom Morris (talk) 10:48, 30 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep Patient safety is a large topic which involves many medical specialisms such as anaesthesiology. Nursing plays a significant part in this too - avoiding error in dosage, cross-infection &c.  If the current draft is weak, our editing policy is to improve it.  See Nursing Times which confirms the notability and depth of the topic.  Warden (talk) 10:52, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
 * And tell me how this is not redundant to the patient safety article. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 21:00, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Let's start with the fact that it references numerous sources such as Understanding the Cognitive Work of Nursing in the Acute Care Environment and these sources are not contained in that other article. You state in the nomination that the article is unsourced but that statement seems to be false.  What is the explanation for this blunder?  Warden (talk) 00:30, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Most of it is unsourced. If you think the sources are useful, dump them somewhere else. As it stands, this article is still redundant in every way content-wise even if the sources are not used elsewhere. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 18:43, 5 December 2011 (UTC)


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


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, v/r - TP 01:38, 8 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete per Ten Pound Hammer. Unnecessary repetition - move across anything worth saving and then delete. --Legis (talk - contribs) 08:12, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
 * That would be contrary to our licensing policy - see WP:MAD. Warden (talk) 10:03, 8 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Merge and redirect as above. Stuartyeates (talk) 05:37, 10 December 2011 (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.