Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/First responder

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 redirect to Certified first responder. Uncontroversial editorial action. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 16:19, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

First responder

Article is no longer noteworthy by itself, much better content can be found at Certified first responder including a note in the introduction that a "First Responder" is the first medically trained person on-scene. This should become a re-direct to Certified first responder. Frmatt (talk) 06:21, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect per nominator. It's highly likely people looking for the article on this subject will look for 'First responder', but the article is best located at the formal name of the post. Sam Blacketer (talk) 10:43, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect - There are enough differences that it will take a bit of writing to achieve a properly integrated merge, but for the most part, Certified first responder contains more useful content and stronger sourcing. Merging into CFR is the proper solution, and a redirect will resolve any confusion when readers are searching. Doc Tropics 15:17, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect per above. Niteshift36 (talk) 07:43, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The nomination is malformed. The article does not have an AFD template. Furthermore, the nominator isn't advocating deletion, but redirection. This is a normal editting action that does not require an AFD. -- Whpq (talk) 17:10, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Reply - Unknown who removed the template from the page (History doesn't show any changes, despite the fact that I used Twinkle to nominate this on the 20th) but it is there now. I brought it here because this was talked about on the talk page of the article, but no consensus was found (through apathy rather than competing interests) and nobody wants to take a strong stand by either agreeing with me that it should be deleted or by improving it substantially. I figured this was the best way to not get somebody pissed off at me. Frmatt (talk) 17:30, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reply - Well, if you wanted to get somebody pissed off at you, boldly redirecting might have accomplished that! :) You do need to double-check on Twinkle. It will hiccup once in a while and fail to place the AFD tag. -- Whpq (talk) 17:38, 24 July 2009 (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.