Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bismarck Model

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. Tone 20:58, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Bismarck Model (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

Merge into Health system.The article does not meet WP:GNG for a stand alone article.   // Timothy :: talk  06:59, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions.   // Timothy :: talk  06:59, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Why we don't create a good page about Healthcare merging also Beveridge Model into the page Health system? We have some other stuff which is not so long ans can be merged --Sciking (talk) 11:04, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The topic seems quite notable. See the scholar links above and WP:NEXIST. Andrew🐉(talk) 13:39, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment The information is quality, it's the location I question. I second creator Sciking comment about merging other articles like this into Health system to create one good article instead of many start articles. Health system gets a substantial number of views each month and if the information was added there it would be read more often and be of better use (I base this on the views Beveridge Model receives). This could easily be a WP:GA nomination and work towards WP:FA. I'd suggest changing the redirects so that Health care system is the article name instead of Health system. Kudos to the creator on the article.   // Timothy :: talk  13:59, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Health system is a very broad topic which will tend to get overrun by tendentious editors trying to score political points about current controversies. It's already over 42K and so should not be overloaded with lots of history. For example, in ancient Babylon, Herodutus records "during the early 4th century BC whilst travelling through Babylon he observed a custom that was prevalent in the area during this time. Those suffering from illness would be laid out in the street in front of their homes so that passers-by could offer their medical advice derived from experience perhaps through hearsay, from having the disease themselves, or from encountering similar symptoms on others." There have been numerous different systems and so an encyclopedic treatment should avoid recentism. Anyway, AfD is not cleanup and so shouldn't be used for such discussions. Andrew🐉(talk) 14:35, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect or Merge to Health_system. This doesn't seem notable enough on it's own to warrant an article. I agree with TimothyBlue that it would be worth mentioning in the article though. While as Andrew says, Wikipedia isn't cleanup, it's also not valid to cite the length of a merge or redirect target as a reason not to do either. Since article length is a different problem from notability, he's the one always going off about how things should be merged. Plus, aren't mutually exclusive anyway. --Adamant1 (talk) 12:01, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Length is certainly a valid consideration as WP:MERGE says plainly that "Merging should be avoided if: The resulting article would be too long...". Andrew🐉(talk) 13:10, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

My only issue with the sentence you cited is that "to long" isn't a clear standard and 25 of the article is the references section anyway. Which doesn't count for article length IMO. Plus, someone unilaterally deciding it in an unrelated AfD to justify keeping something isn't really authoritative or meaningful. Maybe it would be if there was at least a discussion about on the articles talk page already or something, but there isn't. --Adamant1 (talk) 13:28, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. The topic has coverage for example in [1]. We have room for articles about health systems in many countries, and even periods as long as they pass GNG and the coverage here demonstrates this German system can warrant a stand-alone article. PS. Wow, I just realized I actually agreed on something with Andrew. Gotta check the weather report from hell... PPS. I am mildy puzzled there is no de wiki interwiki? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:04, 21 August 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.