Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Society for Healthcare Strategy and Market Development

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 no consensus. Cirt (talk) 21:29, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Society for Healthcare Strategy and Market Development

[edit]
Society for Healthcare Strategy and Market Development (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

Appears to fail WP:CORP. Cited references are either advertisements for events this group has put on, primary sources, or not related. SchuminWeb (Talk) 03:31, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak delete - Nom's argument is sound, though if the claims made in the article could be verified with multiple non-trivial reliable sources, notability would be established. As it stands now, though, it should go. / Blaxthos ( t / c ) 03:42, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Article has been edited to address nom's evolving concerns... as for advertisement's for events, I am not sure what multiple non-trivial reliable sources would qualify to prove the group has a conference, but I have tried to accommodate. Please advise on progress, as much of what may count as "verifiable" is not online, I fear. I don't feel this page has issues that are different from the majority of Wikipedia pages, IMHO. Dbrowell (talk) 07:13, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Having a conference doesn't qualify the organization for an article. /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 11:48, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't mean to suggest it did, as you pointed out there were already claims made in the article to make it notable that just needed more sources - I was trying to specifically address the comment the nom made about advertisements for events. I would hope that being a group of over 4,500 professionals involving every hospital in the country would more than qualify it considering how small some of the professional organizations are that Wikipedia does have. Any comment on the changes I did? I made them article-wide and included 3rd party references from business journals, etc. Thanks for your help. Dbrowell (talk) 12:28, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate your interest in cleaning up this article. You are correct, I did say that the claims seem to be enough to establish notability if the claims can be verified. The major stumbling blocks are twofold: WP:CORP states that

An organization is generally considered notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources.

Reliable sources are defined by WP:RS. I'm still having trouble overcoming the objections I noted above, as all of the sources listed seem to be self published blogs and primary sources. A lack of reliable, published, secondary sources is usually a strong indication of questionable notability. Are there any published sources that deal with this organization specifically that we may use for verification (JAMA, etc)? /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 21:38, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, still trying... I have added and replaced some sources, including articles from Hospital & Health Networks Magazine, a published dissertation featuring SHSMD data, and knocked out a few sources that were considered unreliable. I guess it's particularly frustrating when there are entries for groups such as the American Marketing Association which has no active sources, and also take the American Nursing Association which uses only their own Nursing World primary source website as sources. It seems like if I just posted the article with only two references, it was more likely to be left alone. (Entries about dead malls like Tanglewood Mall being included in Wikipedia and yet a large, AHA-related professional organization has to struggle for notability is a bit frustrating too.) Anyway, I'm still working at it if you can provide any more direction needed to get this deletion specter removed... Thanks for your help. Dbrowell (talk) 00:15, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, I've felt exactly the same frustration you do. I don't necessarily think that those other articles should exist, but I do believe that we have to abide by sourcing and notability requirements. If we can come up with a few demonstrations of published studies that use data published by this organization I believe notability would be established and I'll gladly change my position. I'll try to do some digging around too. /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 16:59, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What about the LSU dissertation and the HHNM I added?Dbrowell (talk) 19:40, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Isn't there a single newspaper article about this group? Sources do not have to be available online. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:15, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, there are several - I'll see if I can solidify references. I have yet to see many Wikipedia entries survive arguments using references that weren't online.Dbrowell (talk) 13:28, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hersfold (t/a/c) 00:05, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete. Just because it has a lot of members and organizes conferences it does not mean Wikipedia should have an article on it. Hopefully some reliable references will appear... VG ☎ 10:58, 19 September 2008 (UTC) Keep. There are enough 3rd party sources to establish notability. VG ☎ 17:09, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Professional organizations like this are myriad. Every profession has several. When they break away from being merely another item in a series and into being encyclopedic is when these organizations raise their profile outside of their industries or turn into the guides or controllers of their professions. While PHARMA is encyclopedic, a particular organization for hospitalers is not. Utgard Loki (talk) 13:14, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, seems to meet WP:GNG based on the sources. Stifle (talk) 21:18, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think the large number of footnotes in the article is confusing. Only the St. Luis Business Journal is not a blog or self-reference. And it devotes only a paragraph or two to this organization. VG ☎ 17:28, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This is patently false- there are references from a published dissertation who used SHSMD research, healthcare magazines references and more; it certainly could be cleaned and culled of some references, but just a skimming of this discussion can see how the references piled up in order to satisfy questions; I completely agree, however-- an article so short shouldn't have to have so many references and may be the focus of undue scrutiny, see my "Keep" comment below.Dbrowell (talk) 13:55, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
By "self-refereces" I meant to include those from the parent organization. SHSMD is indeed mentioned, and not just in passing, in an MA thesis from Louisiana State University, so I stand corrected on that point. VG ☎ 17:05, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into AHA article. This is not a separate association, it's just a division of the AHA. "The Society is a Personal Membership Group of the American Hospital Association (AHA)." [1]. special interest groups such as this are not independently notable. All national professional organization are probably notable, but not the subdivisions--regardless of how they choose to name themselves. DGG (talk) 23:31, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Frankly, I think this is a gray area in the guidelines, and in practice we have poorly enforced criteria here. I've started a guideline discussion. VG ☎ 17:46, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
point is that it is not an independent organization, but essentially a SIG -- a special interest group, like the numerous special interest groups in ASISIT or in most professional organizations. Can you show any information to the contrary? I gave a quote from your own web page that says so. In full "The Society was formed as a result of the merger of the AHA American Society for Health Care Marketing and Public Relations (founded in 1964) and the AHA Society for Healthcare Planning and Marketing (founded in 1977). The Society is a Personal Membership Group of the American Hospital Association (AHA)." Your logo reads:"Society for Healthcare Strategy and Marketing Development of the American Hospital Association" There is no indication of separate existence. The parent organisation has a page [2] that lists its various membership groups, and says that they are the ways individuals join the main organization... and gives a list of the 16 sections, with a special section for members at large who are not members of one of the groups. [3]. From your bylaws [4] "The Society is organized exclusively for charitable, scientific and educational purposes as an integral part of the American Hospital Association (hereinafter "Association"). (my italics) You are merely one of the sections of the larger association. I see no indication on your web page that you have a separate corporate existence, not even a separate registration as a non profit organization. I see no indication you are a separate legal entity. Organization that are give their tax registration as a nonprofit organization very prominently, and their WP article invariably says so in the first two sentences. You do not have it anywhere.
If you were an independent organization, then you would be notable. The sources are sufficient for that. I recognize the difficulty of sourcing for the leading professional association in afield, for there's nobody outside of it to refer to them. DGG (talk) 17:13, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think that your last point is where I am confused - why is the organization only notable if it was not a part of a larger whole? Why does it's history nullify it's notability and are there any other examples of this? This doesn't seem like a Wiki policy argument. Clearly the org is not trying to hide it's roots, in fact i would suggest that because of he AHA page it lends itself to sub-pages dealing with sub-organizations (if SHSMD was looking for notability in a vacuum it would be a paltry orphan without an AHA entry, no?) Wikipedia is full of entries that break down a whole into its parts, and with great reason.Dbrowell (talk) 10:32, 24 September 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Society_for_Healthcare_Strategy_and_Market_Development&oldid=1138776295"