Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bed management

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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 per WP:SNOW and practical mootness: the article has been entirely rewritten and is no longer the article that was nominated. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:30, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Bed management

Bed management (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View log)

This article doesn't appear to meet any speedy deletion criterion, that's why I'm bringing it to AFD. There is very little context in the article, but perhaps too much for A1. It's a coatrack for advertising, but perhaps not blatant enough for G11. Either way, there's not enough for a Wikipedia article. AecisBrievenbus 13:30, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

  • Keep: A whopping lot of hits on Google UK [1] and plainly from a lot of reliable sources. It's certainly a weak little stub, but being a stub isn't a valid deletion ground.  RGTraynor  13:35, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep per RGTraynor. It seems that there is a lot to be said about this subject, and enough published information to compose an article about it. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:49, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Undecided for the moment. It is true that there are lots of reliable sources that mention this term. GoogleNews alone gives 614 hits[2]. However, the current shape of the article is not good enough to stand on its own as a stub. No sources are cited and it is not clear if the subject is really a well-defined topic of its own or just a term/definition that is properly a part of a larger and more well-defined topic. With a generic-sounding name like that I am somewhat unsure. Probably could be improved to a decent stub version by a knowlegeable person but I'd like that happen first. Nsk92 (talk) 14:58, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
Changing to Keep. I see that the article has been sourced and improved and is already in a good enough shape to be kept. Nsk92 (talk) 15:36, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Speedy Keep Article will obviously be kept now. Colonel Warden (talk) 15:33, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep. I have rewritten the article with a summary of why Bed management is an important issue in Hospital management, and I've added five pretty authoritative references. There's more to be said: I would suggest a section on demand management (section 3 of the Audit Commission 2003 paper covers most of the ground), and another section on discharge management (which is discussed in several of the existing referencs). Ideally we would have a GFDL version of the fig 1. on page 150 of the Proudfoot paper to explain the scope and terms. I don't think it is necessary to list software implementations unless there is a reputable product whose website has useful screen shots. - Pointillist (talk) 15:42, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep as rewritten, I think the nomination can be withdrawn now that the original points for deletion are moot. coccyx bloccyx(toccyx) 17:05, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep—a well-sourced article on a subject of general interest to the UK population at the least. SHEFFIELDSTEELTALK 19:52, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
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.