Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/South Essex Partnership University NHS Foundation Trust


 * 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. (non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 22:32, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

South Essex Partnership University NHS Foundation Trust

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Unreferenced, very little content and context and does not establish notability.  Sports guy  17  23:37, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

South Essex Partnership University NHS Foundation Trust is a major NHS institution. It features in various parts of Wikipedia's rather chaotic portrayal of the NHS. This article needs expansion, its true. But it is only one of about 150 featured on the list of NHS trusts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rathfelder (talk • contribs) 23:43, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete - Next to none info .... - You might want to shove the rest up.
 * →Davey 2010→ →Talk to me!→  23:47, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:30, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:31, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:31, 28 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep without prejudice. The article was barely five minutes old when it was nominated, and a cursory search of the internet shows there's material out there. I'd rather see the article get some time for improvement (rather than improvement by AfD). That said, if it sat at a stub like that for any more than a week, it should go to AfD. Likewise, if this AfD ends in keep and the article goes more than a month without being able to get it into good shape, then I would support a second AfD. —C.Fred (talk) 00:31, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep. NHS Healthcare trusts are large regional organisations that are almost by definition notable. If there is truly nothing remarkable to be said, such an article should be merged to the nearest most appropriate (e.g. "NHS mental health trusts in the East of England") but actual deletion seems excessive. JFW &#124; T@lk  20:33, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment Author has created a myriad of stubs related to this all of which (iirc) lack references and are uncategorized. It's putting me on tilt a bit having to go through and tag all these, especially considering the author's intent (seems to me at least) is just to rely on other editors to do their work. Requesting an appropriate template for a warning or block be placed on this user. Sulfurboy (talk) 23:17, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep: yes, this editor has gone about his project the wrong way, creating a raft of fairly dreadful stubs, but the NHS trusts are notable, and there's scope for articles explaining, at the least, the family tree relationships between the many mergers of trusts since they were created, the acquisition of Foundation status, the hospitals and other services provided, and lots of redirects from the previous names and the hospitals themselves (if not covered in individual articles or sections of town articles etc). I've just spent two hours cleaning up a batch of these stubs, but more work needs to be done including invention of a decent infobox template instead of the strange mess they've copied from some other article where they found it.  Pam  D  10:47 am, Today (UTC+0)
 * Comment Thanks, Pam . You did a lot to improve these and generally help my sanity. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sulfurboy (talk • contribs)


 * Keep -- It is a poor stub. However NHS Trusts are certainly notable.  It may be that the premature AFD tag actually prevented this being turned into a decent article.  Peterkingiron (talk) 13:22, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep but educate the creating editor of this and so many other NHS Trust stubs that this is not the best way to work. Unreferenced stubs shot out with machine gun regularity are the bane of so many areas of Wikipedia. An NHS Trust is inherently notable. Many of them also have substantial media coverage,m often highly negative. None of that is included, and it ought to be, and as WP:RS references. Fiddle   Faddle  10:18, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep - WP:NOTCLEANUP. I think everyone else has expanded on this point above. Ritchie333  (talk)  (cont)   10:27, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep I agree that healthcare services in England should be covered in Wikipedia and doing so is clearly in accordance with policy eg WP:NOT. Having it at trust level for the NHS seems the most practical - coverage by region or other geographical split runs into all sorts of difficulty and England (pop 53 million) is too big for anything other than a broad overview. Individual facilities may be very small. The NHS poses especial challenges because of incessant reorganisation, but there are problems with coverage of public bodies as a whole regarding which Wikipedia guidelines are very unhelpful. British media rarely cover the subjects in the way that Notability (organizations and companies) envisages, and we have even had editors argue that any source produced within the public sector or written by somebody employed in the public sector who is writing in connection with their employment does not count as independent and cannot be taken into account for notability purposes. Including only reports of complaints, criticisms and human interest stories does not provide the basis for encyclopaedic coverage. But then even very large multi-national corporations with turnover in the billions often fail the tests if based in Europe, and are kept because common sense prevails. --AJHingston (talk) 11:41, 1 November 2013 (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.