Talk:Working in Partnership Programme

This article was nominated for deletion. Please review the prior discussions if you are considering re-nomination:

no consensus, 11 January 2018, see discussion.
Speedy keep, 14 May 2008, see discussion.

Re: please hang on with deletion[edit]

Please note that Working in Pertnership Programme is neither a company nor a product on sale. This is a programme to help the public as well as health care people with a number of helpful information and other things available for free download from the website. In some ways this programme tries to help people in similar ways as wiki. So please think carefully before wanting to delete this page. It is possible that some further editing is needed to meet wiki criteria. Please post any instructions that may need to be followed. Thank you very much. With best wishes. Bonhomie1 (talk) 13:56, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WiPP - speedy wtf?[edit]

WiPP is not a product, group or organisation. Speedy G11 is obviously incorrect for thiss article. WiPP is a process as part of the UK National Health Service. The NHS is the thiird largest employer in the world, providing health services to some 60 million people. Almost all people in England and Wales are entitled to be registered with a General Practitioner - and GPs will be making use of WiPP. GPs used to have restricted funding. GPs now have different funding. A WiPP article is needed to show how GPs can provide a broader range of services, and how those services are funded, and how those services fit in with the rest of the NHS. The NHS is complex. strongly advise that this article (which is still pretty new) is kept and allowed to be worked upon. Dan Beale-Cocks 15:06, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I just have to ask if you're aware that any editor aside from the article's creator is permitted and encouraged to remove speedy tags with which they disagree? From WP:CSD, "Any editor who is not the creator of a page may remove a speedy tag from it." It's nice to address the issues that lead to the tagging, but if you simply disagree that the article meets the criterion you don't have to do anything additional. It's up to the tagging editor to pursue it further if his or her concerns persist. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 15:23, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Moonriddengirl, I am copying and pasting a message here which I wrote to Phil. Hope you are satisfied with what I have to say. I know I am not a very good editor, but I can assure you I want to do something useful by giving back to wiki all the helpful things it has done for me so far. The health care system in the UK is quite unique as it provides free care to people. This WiPP programme now provides free useful tools which can be used by people free and also by professionals to help people. I am trying slowly to bring the items to the attention of wiki users making sure that no copyright is infringed. I will have to go slowly, so please bear with me. There is no money to be made by anyone. And basically my idea is that wiki will only signpost the material. People can become aware and then use the materials through the actual websites which will provide them. Hope this is ok with you. If I can improve things on wiki, please feel free to let me know. I am eager to learn. Best wishes. Bonhomie1 (talk) 20:49, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Bonhomie1. :) I know that the learning curve can be challenging. If you haven't already discovered it, we do have a help desk which is typically manned by volunteers around the clock; there is also one specifically for new contributors, here. You can even ask a question at your own talk page and paste {{helpme}} (brackets and all) next to it, and a volunteer will come to you. I know the process can seem difficult, but we do welcome your contribution to Wikipedia.

My point with the above note was to remind Dan, in case he had forgotten or was unaware, that he did not have to contest a speedy deletion nomination by posting a note on the article's talk page but could simply remove the notice. Since article's creators are sometimes understandably biased in these things, creators are not allowed to remove "speedy deletion" requests from articles, but any other editor may do so. In any event, this article is not currently a candidate for deletion, although it has been tagged for cleanup.

If you'd like to talk further about any of this, please feel free to leave me a message at my talk page. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 21:25, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Bonhomie. I have just done some further clean-up. Do see Wikipedia - Manual of Style for inputs on the format and style of articles. Cheers. Prashanthns (talk) 08:56, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Programme finished/dead links[edit]

The Programme ran from 2004 through 2008 ^[1] and now the website's gone, which means every link is dead: all 14 references and the external link. I haven't found an appropriate template and adding {{dead link}} after all of them individually when the article already has multiple issues seems absurd. BlackcurrantTea (talk) 12:21, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ "Completed evidence forms" (PDF). nhs.uk. Retrieved 27 September 2016. "Some of the tools are already available, for example those developed through the Working in Partnership Programme (WiPP), which was set up in 2004 to support general practice with capacity building resources and strategies, and completed its pioneering £11m programme in 2008."

[1] "Completed evidence forms" (PDF). nhs.uk. Retrieved 27 September 2016. "Some of the tools are already available, for example those developed through the Working in Partnership Programme (WiPP), which was set up in 2004 to support general practice with capacity building resources and strategies, and completed its pioneering £11m programme in 2008."

[1]