Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Health in Switzerland

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. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 04:54, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Health in Switzerland[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)

Minimal content for years. All content also available in linked articles. Hardly any changes for years. ZH8000 (talk) 14:54, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. ZH8000 (talk) 14:54, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Switzerland-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:59, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It needs work, but we have articles about health in all substantial countries. I cant see removing this as a helpful measure. Rathfelder (talk) 15:55, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Going by the sources it seems like this is way to broad a topic and that whatever is out there isn't actually "Health in Switzerland" per say. For the instance the Human Capital Report. Which is way broad, not specifically about health in Switzerland, and also FYI is a dead link. Same goes for the second source. Which, is also dead. The forth one might work, but half of it is about "Healthcare Challenges." Plus, most of it is pretty trivial and extremely surface level. For instance "Baby boomers in Switzerland are growing old." As if that's not obvious. Reference five has to do with "mental health." Which just goes to show this to broad of a subject. We have aging, mental health, challenges of healthcare, and a study of human capital in 195 countries. So, this is way to broad of subject to make it meaningful, the sources are trivial/primary/dead links anyway, and I don't see either of those things changing. Plus, there's already articles that cover this stuff perfectly fine in a more specific manor. For instance Healthcare in Switzerland. There isn't a Mental health in Switzerland article, but one could be created. --Adamant1 (talk) 05:04, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The nomination fails to explain why we should single out Switzerland for special treatment when we have similar articles for all other European countries, detailing their life expectancy, infant mortality and the like. The World Health Organisation makes no such distinction – see Highlights on Health in Switzerland for their detailed report. Insofar as the page has not had much attention lately, this is best addressed by giving it some TLC, rather than by deleting it. That's our policy: "If editing can improve the page, this should be done rather than deleting the page." Andrew🐉(talk) 07:40, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Andrew Davidson: Except the "similar" articles are actually on specific topics like "Disability in Hungary‎." Which this article isn't and there's already like 10 articles specifically for Switzerland that are. --Adamant1 (talk) 19:05, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No, Adamant1 seems to be mistaking categories for articles. The equivalent article for Hungary, Health in Hungary, contains similar content about life expectancy and next to nothing about disability. My !vote stands. Andrew🐉(talk) 22:45, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your the one that linked to a category. Not that WP:OSE is a valid argument or that I care if you change your vote anyway. I was simply pointing out that are more specific articles about the subject, which is the direction I think this should go in, because I thought you might have an opinion it as an option. So, maybe AGF. --Adamant1 (talk) 23:00, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OSE explains that '"other stuff exists" arguments can be valid or invalid.' In this case, they are quite valid because the pattern is so clear and consistent. Consider Switzerland's neighbours:

It would be anomalous to selectively delete the page about Switzerland. Andrew🐉(talk) 10:52, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

How do you know it's selective though? Maybe the nominator plans to do AfDs for the other ones. --Adamant1 (talk) 10:55, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I know this because I already checked out the nominator and found that they only seem to edit articles about Switzerland. Andrew🐉(talk) 11:38, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep obviously a notable topic. AfD is not cleanup, WP:WIP, etc. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 08:25, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Health is a broad topic. But its not the same as healthcare. Rathfelder (talk) 09:09, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per above. This article needs better sourcing and more edits/EXPANSION. Notable/essential topic (as for all countries). Swiss romulus (talk) 02:28, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Health is a main topic classification. Rathfelder (talk) 08:13, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per discussion above and WP:OUTCOMES. I especially note that we have discussed and kept many similar articles that needed TLC, see, e.g, Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Nursing_in_pakistan (sic.). Unless consensus changes, these are considered "encyclopedic" articles for which our core readership will be looking. Bearian (talk) 20:50, 12 November 2020 (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.