Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Purnell Model for Cultural Competence


 * 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. User:Aimee.ball, welcome to wikipedia! As you have noticed, our processes are often chaotic, but somehow we manage to keep building the encyclopedia. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:08, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Purnell Model for Cultural Competence

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Fails WP:GNG; pretty much all the sources are self-published. It would possibly be a candidate for a speedy as blatantly promotional but for the fact that it is so difficult to make sense of that I could possibly cite WP:NUKE. TheLongTone (talk) 14:10, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Pretty sure you mean WP:NUKEIT?  C Thomas3   (talk) 21:09, 11 November 2018 (UTC)


 * Draftify This appears to be an ambitious first effort by a new editor who has gone through some introductory exercises and seems to be editing as part of a course assignment. The new editor even requested a peer review of the article. It clearly needs more work, so move it back to user/draft space to let that happen, give other editors a chance to help, and maybe retain a new editor in the process. Bakazaka (talk) 18:30, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Draftify Bakazaka makes a good case for this article simply being a work in progress with a new editor wanting to learn. There seems to be some evidence of independent coverage in the intercultural competence literature. Transferring to draft space is the best solution to work on improving prose and sourcing. -- 19:07, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 23:14, 25 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Comment, did a bit of digging, yes article creator,, may be enrolled in a tertiary education unit (see here) called OLES 2129 Writing for the Digital World (see here), appears that they may have become a bit impatient about getting their article onto mainspace?, anyway, it might be nice if the unit coordinator/instructor(?), , ensures that all their student article talkpages have a Educational assignment template so that editors are aware of the situation. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:36, 26 October 2018 (UTC)
 * See also Education noticeboard/Archive 18. Bakazaka (talk) 17:12, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Given a split opinion on what should be done with it (as a side-note, I've counted the creator's comments as a Keep). It is probably worth editors having a look at the changes made since the 26th
 * Comment, this shouldn't have come here as there is a great Merge target with Intercultural competence (a section could be made there say "Models" listing/discussing the various models including Purnell), most, but not all, of the article's sources are selfpublished sources, have also found these that discuss the model: "Comparison of Four Cultural Competence Models in Transcultural Nursing: A Discussion Paper", "Cultural Competence Models and Cultural Competence Assessment Instruments in Nursing - A Literature Review", from The Scientific World Journal - "Measures of Cultural Competence in Nurses: An Integrative Review" - review of the Purnell etal book Developing Cultural Competence in Physical Therapy Practice, from BMC Nursing - "Identification of Nursing Assessment Models/Tools Validated in Clinical Practice For Use With Diverse Ethno-cultural Groups: An Integrative Review of the Literature", from Social Work in Health Care - "Connection Versus Disconnection: Examining Culturally Competent Care in the Neonatal Intensive Care Unit", there are also books that discuss it including Professional nursing practice : concepts and perspectives, Transcultural Nursing Theory and Models: Application in Nursing Education, Practice, and Administration, so i reckon its a Keep (do agree that article needs a bit of a cleanup, but this is not a reason to delete it). Coolabahapple (talk) 06:54, 26 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment, This page is for a university assignment I am currently completing, I have read everyone's comments and suggestions and rewritten my whole article to overcome the problems. Hopefully this resolves the issues present within the lead section, the neutrality, the self-published articles, the lack of links to other articles and lack of inline citations. If there is anything I have overlooked please post them on my talk page and I will address them. Thanks. Aimee.ball (talk) 09:10, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear (talk) 18:07, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep (updated from previous draftify !vote) as subject is sufficiently covered in multiple, independent, reliable sources, some in the article and some noted above in this discussion. The article needs a lot of work (e.g. removing all of the definitions, pruning non-RS), but it can be edited into shape. Bakazaka (talk) 19:37, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
 * That's an unfortunate and unjustified decision. You were right first time. The article is much more wrong than you imply, see below. Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:39, 1 November 2018 (UTC)


 * Draftify. The topic looks as if it could support an article if suitable secondary sources can be identified. This particular article in this state does not demonstrate notability, and does not begin to discuss the model's applicability. Instead, it simply explains (WP:ESSAY, etc) what the model consists of. If this was a novel article, it would consist only of a plot summary, without the all-important reception section to show why and how it was notable, and without the equally all-important context section to show what it was competing with and what it fitted in with. In short, it is nowhere near ready for mainspace: it needs a wholly new structure, a whole new lot of content, and a complete set of citations. I wouldn't oppose WP:TNT for this case but since the user seems willing to work on it substantially, I think they can work on it as a draft for some months and resubmit. Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:39, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
 * WP:TNT is neither policy nor guideline -- it's just a disruptive essay with no standing. Our actual policy is WP:IMPERFECT which states clearly that "Perfection is not required: Wikipedia is a work in progress. ... Even poor articles, if they can be improved, are welcome.".  The process of working on articles is done in main space where everyone can find and edit them.  Drafts are a backwater and their philosophy is contrary to WP:OWN, which is another policy.  The draft concept failed in Nupedia and Wikipedia is successful because it doesn't work like that. Andrew D. (talk) 21:20, 1 November 2018 (UTC)


 * Comment I've just rewritten the article's lead, which should help clarify the claim to notability and preview the proper organization of the article along the lines of (short) description, (examples of) application, criticism. Bakazaka (talk) 20:20, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep The nomination's claim that the topic is not notable is blatantly false. A list of sources follows to demonstrate this.  The rest is then a matter of ordinary editing which is not the business of AfD per WP:NOTCLEANUP.  Draftification would be disruptive as it would discourage existing work, make it more difficult for other editors to get involved and put the topic in the hands of AfC which is not fit for purpose. Andrew D. (talk) 21:08, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Transcultural Nursing Theory and Models
 * Cultural Competence in Health Education and Health Promotion
 * Human Simulation for Nursing and Health Professions
 * Men in Nursing
 * Making the Transition from LPN to RN
 * Service-Learning in Occupational Therapy Education
 * Pharmacology: A Nursing Process Approach
 * Leininger's Transcultural Nursing

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: User:Andrew Davidson has presented some new sources. It would be silly to close this before people commented one way or the other on the quality of those sources.
 * Comment I have updated the article through adding three new sections: Applications, Strengths & Limitations/Weaknesses. I hope that these sections will help improve some of the issues everyone has identified. I will now work towards fixing the rest of the article and cleaning it up. If anyone believes something should be address urgently please post to my talk page. Thanks Aimee.ball (talk) 01:27, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- RoySmith (talk) 19:23, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions.   C Thomas3   (talk) 21:12, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions.   C Thomas3   (talk) 21:12, 11 November 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep Kudos to for finding some excellent sources; most of these have significant sections devoted to the Purnell model, with at least one having an entire chapter on it. I'm comfortable that we should keep this article and allow  to continue to work on it in mainspace.   C Thomas3   (talk) 21:35, 11 November 2018 (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.