Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/National Patient Safety Foundation

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. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 09:54, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

National Patient Safety Foundation[edit]

[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)

It exists, but I couldn't establish that it meets WP:N. Has been in CAT:NN for 12 years. Boleyn (talk) 06:30, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:55, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:55, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. rsjaffe 🗩 🖉 21:49, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This was an important and well-known organization. WP:NONPROFIT. -- rsjaffe 🗩 🖉 21:54, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 06:48, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It has been merged into another organization, but I think the references demonstrate notability. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 14:38, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Some of the sources cited are not really that reliable. The cited work by Medscape is reliable, however. This article needs more sources to be considered for inclusion that involve significant coverage and are independent of the subject. Multi7001 (talk) 03:08, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Here’s a second independent ref. I’ll work it into the article later. I do agree the article needs work. https://www.nursingoutlook.org/article/S0029-6554(03)00096-4/fulltext# rsjaffe 🗩 🖉 03:39, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwaiiplayer (talk) 12:36, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

rsjaffe, low-tier peer-reviewed journals are not always reliable sources. There should be more significant coverage from multiple RS in this case. Multi7001 (talk) 22:54, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. but rewrite. The article is in excessive detail, but that can be fixed. a NN tag for 12 does not give the presumption of non-notable or even presume a needfor a discussion. . The way to clear out CAT:NN is to check if the tags are still justified, and remove the ones that are not, and try to improve the others. nobody really does BEFORE when just putting on a tag, but it's necessary for deletion. . . DGG ( talk ) 20:06, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Passes GNG. Article does need editing, but WP:AFD is not cleanup.4meter4 (talk) 20:47, 22 September 2021 (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.