Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Future of the NHS

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 delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 07:03, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Future of the NHS

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

A source search regarding this book doesn't bring up much of anything. While the topic "the future of the NHS" is of course very notable, I'm not sure this actual book is worthy of its own article.

(It's been tagged as possibly not meeting GNG for over a year, and also tagged as appearing to be written as an advertisement for over five years. It has no references, and hasn't progressed beyond a stub for eight years.)

(Page creator has a history of creating articles later speedy-deleted due to vanity and promotion.) Holdek (talk) 21:16, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. NickGibson3900 - Talk - Sign my Guestbook 23:41, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as legal and political advocacy with inadequate notability. Would creator of article like to say if he has a COI here? Xxanthippe (talk) 23:49, 26 July 2014 (UTC).[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:28, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:28, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:28, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:28, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: certainly not enough coverage in RS to satisfy the GNG. I have also failed to find evidence of passing WP:NBOOK, though a Gsearch is hard as the title is also a common phrase. BethNaught (talk) 06:58, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails book notability and the general notability guideline. Borderline promotional. Philg88 ^♦talk 07:43, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Both the Michelle Tempest, the editor, and her book The Future of the NHS appear to fail WP:GNG. The book is from a specialist law publisher, publishing books for practitioners. The sole cited source is a related source from the publisher. The other source, cited in the Michelle Tempest article is from a publication of the institution where she teaches (more in the way of a press release). No in depth coverage of the book was found in independent reliable sources. The book has received five cites according to GoogleScholar, but all to the other authors. (I do not have access to Social Sciences Citation Index.) Also fails WP:NBOOK. --Bejnar (talk) 16:27, 1 August 2014 (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.