Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Health and Social Care

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 no consensus. Debate suffered from a lack of participation. No prejudice to taking this to AfD again in a month or so. Randykitty (talk) 15:33, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Health and Social Care

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unreferenced personal essay Rathfelder (talk) 20:47, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:08, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:08, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:08, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I agree the article as it now exists needs a considerable amount of work. As a (UK) subject of study and a professional area, I think the subject is probably notable. There are some possible sources out there: Report: Health and social care integration: update on progress (Audit Scotland); Health and social care funding explained (if that is agreed as a reliable source); Commons Health and Social Care Committee (probably a primary source, unsure). Another editor has added some refs since this was nominated. Tacyarg (talk) 12:23, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There are already thousands of articles about health and social care. Something as general is this is pretty useless. It seems to really be about training for jobs in health and social care. But routes to qualification are specific to different countries. And Wikipedia is not a prospectus.Rathfelder (talk) 13:32, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:09, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:05, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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.