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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:11, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Care in the Community (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)

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

Very confusing article. Nominally it is about the phrase/concept of "care in the community" yet beyond the title/first line of the lead it is not mentioned at all. Most of the article is a collection of vaguely (if at all) linked topics including "community care", then descends further into talking about mental health care and reform and ongoing changes, none of which have anything to do with the specific phrase "care in the community".

Of the first 5 references cited, a Control + F search reveals that not a single one even contains the word "community" let alone the phrase "care in the community".

There is one news article which mentions this topic by name, namely this, which suggests it was a policy introduced in 1990 and scrapped in 1998, yet this article is so vague it covers a range of random mental health developments from the 1960s to 2015.

Overall, I think the problem with this article is that whilst it is nominally about the phrase/concept of "care in the community", it has essentially become about mental and social care in the United Kingdom.

It should be merged with the relevant sections of Mental health in the United Kingdom and Social care in England. Elshad (talk) 23:10, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Health and fitness and Psychiatry. Elshad (talk) 23:10, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Very heavy on OR, poorly-sourced and unfocused. While it's conceivable that an article could be written about this topic, from the sources provided I'm not seeing what we would base it on. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 00:00, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • You'd base it upon these, just for starters:
    • Dustin, Donna (2016). The McDonaldization of Social Work. Routledge. ISBN 9781317024347.
    • Welshman, John (2006). "Ideology, Ideas, and Care in the Community 1948–71". In Welshman, John; Walmsley, Jan (eds.). Community Care in Perspective: Care, Control and Citizenship. Springer. ISBN 9780230596528.
    • Walmsley, Jan (2006). "Ideology, Ideas, and Care in the Community 1971–2001". In Welshman, John; Walmsley, Jan (eds.). Community Care in Perspective: Care, Control and Citizenship. Springer. ISBN 9780230596528.
    • Butler, I.; Drakeford, M. (2002a). "'Mere Oblivion': The Fate of the Institution and the Advent of Community Care". Social Policy, Social Welfare and Scandal: How British Public Policy is Made. Springer. ISBN 9780230554467.
    • Butler, I.; Drakeford, M. (2002b). "'Carnage in the Community': The Christopher Clunis Inquiry 1993". Social Policy, Social Welfare and Scandal: How British Public Policy is Made. Springer. ISBN 9780230554467.
  • There seems to be a distinct lack of reading books going on here. This was a major U.K. social policy spanning decades that even I have heard of, and there are books on public policy and political history coming out of one's ears on this one. Indeed, there's a three hundred page book already cited in the article at the time of nomination (doi:10.1007/978-1-349-26717-0) that spends an entire 15 pages just introducing this subject. And given that Butler & Drakeford 2002b goes into how the U.K. tabloid and other press reacted to this issue (which I also turned up in a school textbook, even) the idea that "There is one news article which mentions this topic by name" is utterly ludicrous. Then I start to turn up the journal articles, just by searching for what the school textbook (ISBN 9780435331603 p.236) said about a Times report on how "the Care in the Community had failed":
    • Warden, John (1998-12-12). "England abandons care in the community for the mentally ill". British Medical Journal. 317 (7173): 1611.
  • And the Butler & Drakeford book is right, too. Because the very next result is yet another newspaper, not the Times and not the BBC:
    • Cooper, Glenda (1998-12-07). "Government ditches care in the community". The Independent.
  • As I said, this is coming out of one's ears. Definitely no research being done, here. Or spotting the entire contemporary book on the subject in the references section of the article.

    Uncle G (talk) 01:32, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:53, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Uncle G. AfD is not cleanup and this nomination shows a decided lack of WP:BEFORE. Thryduulf (talk) 20:20, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per WP:DINC. The article is a hot mess, but if WP:BEFORE was done at all, it was done haphazardly. I found a dozen very specific sources, many of which overlap Uncle G's, with a brief search. Also, I am seeing references for the concept of care in the community (lower case, not the programme/scheme) in non-British sources which might enable a broader article on the overall idea. Regardless, there is no policy-based reason to delete this long-standing mess of an article. Cheers, Last1in (talk) 18:10, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: A couple more editors providing input here would assist with forming consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 01:00, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - the somewhat generic name makes searches difficult, but a little digging through Google Scholar + other databases reveals plenty of academic coverage and newspaper coverage. Article can and should be improved, but not deleted. —Ganesha811 (talk) 15:14, 24 December 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.