Deletion of Mobile hospital

Comment: Field hospital' refers to civilian settings as well as military. https://www.npr.org/2021/01/31/962528974/field-hospitals-return-to-some-states-as-covid-19-pushes-hospitals-to-breaking-p NPR,https://www.bbc.com/news/world-52089337 BBC,https://www.medpagetoday.com/special-reports/exclusives/90920 MedPage Today,https://www.webmd.com/lung/qa/what-are-field-hospitals-and-what-are-they-used-for WebMD. That the original article was tagged for multiple issues doesn't justify creating a . Sources address the topic by this term because it is a common synonym, but creating separate articles for synonymous terms is the literal definition of REDUNDANTFORK-ing
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Content forking (WP:REDUNDANTFORK)

Comment: The field hospital article has had a banner tag with multiple issues since 2014 and so is clearly neither adequate nor complete.  The concept of a mobile hospital is more general than that of a field hospital.  The latter is more specific, being set in or near a military front line.  A mobile hospital is a more general concept and would tend to be a more substantial facility.  For example, the rapid deployment of temporary COVID isolation hospitals in China using prefabricated components would be in scope for the page in question.  A hospital ship is another type of mobile hospital and they were used during the pandemic too.  It is easy to find respectable sources which address the topic by this title – see ''https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0196064406009401 Use of an Innovative Design Mobile Hospital in the Medical Response to Hurricane Katrina'' – and so our policy  applies, "''If editing can improve the page, this should be done rather than deleting the page
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Deletion policy (WP:ATD)

Comment: to field hospital - As stated by Timothy above, pretty much the entirety of this article is completely unsourced, making it .  The field hospital article itself isn't in the best shape, but it does have considerably more sourced content than this article does.  Could this subject potentially be developed in a way that it would be a valid ?  Possibly.  Should we keep an article comprised entirely of original research in the main article space in the meantime?  Absolutely not
Stance: merge
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:OR||WP:SPLIT)