Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Teddy bear hospital


 * 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__EXPECTED_UNCONNECTED_PAGE__. Liz Read! Talk! 06:48, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

Teddy bear hospital

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

Has been in CAT:NN for over 13 years. Last AfD attracted little response and was no consensus. It reads as promotional, but also I couldn't find sources to confirm it meets WP:N, as an individual place or as a concept. Boleyn (talk) 20:33, 12 November 2023 (UTC) Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:58, 19 November 2023 (UTC) Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:21, 26 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Education, Medicine, Israel, Ireland, United Kingdom,  and Australia.  WC  Quidditch   ☎   ✎  21:28, 12 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment: The previous AfD was at Articles for deletion/SGUL Teddy Bear Hospital; the article was renamed following a move request. No opinion on the article itself at this time.  WC  Quidditch  ☎   ✎  21:32, 12 November 2023 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Relisting comment: Final relist. Not eligible for soft-deletion. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 05:35, 3 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete. Such initiatives often have a limited shelf life and are best not captured in WP entries. Still, if it was mentioned on St George's Hospital, it could have been redirected. Since it isn't, delete is the only good option. gidonb (talk) 23:27, 29 November 2023 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.


 * Keep WP:ARTN, WP:NTEMP. There is also no WP:DEADLINE. Although I cannot see the ProQuest previews (they might just be dead links), I can find a number of sources independent of St George's University of London with independent significant coverage:      Granted, a few of these are preprints, but there is plenty of academic material for expansion. The article doesn't even list there was a trial in Singapore too: . I will try to expand the sources and improve the article too. Darcyisverycute (talk) 12:02, 3 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment I have made some initial improvements to the article. With the sources provided it could still be improved plenty more - going in details about regional variations of studies, how study design differs from typical practice in pediatric curriculums, what hospitals run programs, so on. Darcyisverycute (talk) 13:22, 3 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Procedural keep. This AfD was opened less than three weeks after the prvious one was closed. I also find the comment about "limited shelf life" odd. The project has been going on for 23 years already. Owen&times; &#9742;  17:11, 3 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep. Based on, not least, the journal sources/coverage (,, , , , etc), I don't think I can support deletion on a "can't find sources" basis. The promotional stuff is WP:SURMOUNTABLE (and already largely surmounted). If there are issues here, I don't think they are so fundamental (clear lack of notability, overt/insurmountable advertising, copyvio, etc) that deletion is the right approach. Guliolopez (talk) 10:57, 5 December 2023 (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.