Deletion of South Essex Partnership University NHS Foundation Trust

Comment: I agree that healthcare services in England should be covered in Wikipedia and doing so is clearly in accordance with policy eg . Having it at trust level for the NHS seems the most practical - coverage by region or other geographical split runs into all sorts of difficulty and England (pop 53 million) is too big for anything other than a broad overview. Individual facilities may be very small. The NHS poses especial challenges because of incessant reorganisation, but there are problems with coverage of public bodies as a whole regarding which Wikipedia guidelines are very unhelpful. British media rarely cover the subjects in the way that Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies) envisages, and we have even had editors argue that ''any'' source produced within the public sector or written by somebody employed in the public sector who is writing in connection with their employment does not count as independent and cannot be taken into account for notability purposes. Including only reports of complaints, criticisms and human interest stories does not provide the basis for encyclopaedic coverage.  But then even very large multi-national corporations with turnover in the billions often fail the tests if based in Europe, and are kept because common sense prevails
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOT)

Comment: but educate the creating editor of this and so many other NHS Trust stubs that this is not the best way to work. Unreferenced stubs shot out with machine gun regularity are the bane of so many areas of Wikipedia. An NHS Trust is inherently notable. Many of them also have substantial media coverage,m often highly negative. None of that is included, and it ought to be, and as  references
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Reliable sources (WP:RS)