Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/East Lancashire Primary Care 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 no consensus‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:31, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

East Lancashire Primary Care Trust[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)

Defunct organisation, not particularly notable at all, only one self-referencing source Elshad (talk) 10:14, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No significant coverage to meet GNG. LibStar (talk) 10:30, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Health and fitness, Organizations, Medicine, and England. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:34, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not at all notable. Most search results are for "East Lancashire Hospitals". FlutterDash344 (talk) 23:07, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Being defunct is not the same as not notable. Once notable, always notable. A health organization such as this one is likely to be a major employer in its area of operation and to generate a certain amount of media coverage, both when it starts something new and when it makes a mistake. (We can have a long discussion elsewhere about how the HNS doesn't listen to whistle-blowers.) I will try to add some references. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 15:25, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 10:52, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 07:43, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. We really need some evaluation of expansion of article since nomination and addition of sources.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:45, 18 September 2023 (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.