Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Society for Health Education and Health Promotion Specialists

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 delete. Secret ^account 21:46, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Society for Health Education and Health Promotion Specialists

Strange one this. The external link given on the page is not relevant - a blog - and is certainly not an "Official website". A google search [1] produces 20 distinct hits, mostly either wiki type pages or directories which either simply list the organisation of repeat the Wiki detail. The exceptions are a PDF document from the UK Department of Health which lists the organisation as one of many invited to consult on sexual health (but with no indication it did), so not exactly a source or refrence. (And its even possible the DoH sent out invites to everyone on one of the directories already mentioned, whether or not they exist!) The other exception is a course syllabus from Ulster University, dated 1997, which states that "Continuing recognition by the Society for Health Education and Health Promotion Specialists will be sought" for the postgraduate course. There are no independent secondary sources to back up anything in the article. I have my doubts that it exists, or, at least, that it still exists. Emeraude (talk) 13:51, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep — I have found a book written on health promotion here. There also seem to be other verifiable sources referenced from Elsevier and Emerald Insight. MuZemike (talk) 22:30, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Well done, possibly. It's not a book though, it's a page from a 1996 journal article which says that SHEPS organised an "oddly named symposium" one weekend for 30 invited people. As I don't currently have access to subscription journals, I'm unable to read any more (the writer could go on to say......what?). The other two sources are equally impenetrable without a sub to the journals and there is no mention of SHEPS in the pages you have linked! If you have access, please quote directly so that we can assess the value of these journal articles. Emeraude (talk) 23:00, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 03:39, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 10:02, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - on present evidence, not notable. JohnCD (talk) 10:58, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - notability not established, and searches to find any notability come up empty for me. No prejudice against recreation if evidence can be found to establish notability. Frank | talk 13:41, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; I am bothered by this one. Though there are several Ghits surely any reputable professional body would have its own website, and I can't trace one. Further, there are no news hits at all. Sorry, fails WP:Org and possibly WP:V. Smile a While (talk) 02:44, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and check, because at best there appears to be a problem about the right title--there is older material about a UK society by this name, but I cannot find current information. DGG (talk) 00:22, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- - When I nominated this article for deletion, I mistakenly assumed the creator was an inactive user. Turns out I was wrong and I have today posted a note on their user page inviting a comment. Since making the nomination, I have continued to look for information about SHEPS to no avail. Having been involved in sex and health education in English schools for more than 30 years, I ought to have at least heard of the organisation; that I hadn't is what aroused my interest. Naturally, I am supporting delete. Emeraude (talk) 00:50, 11 November 2008 (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.