Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Covert Medication

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 keep. Bearian (talk) 22:37, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Covert Medication[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Delete, the articles do not show that Covert Medication, while mentioned, doesn't show it is an actual term in widespread usage. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 03:27, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This is, at the moment, a fairly awful little stub with an entirely Anglocentric view of the situation, cited only to news stories that don't always agree on the terminology. That all said, the topic is a real thing, and there are plenty of better sources, of which I'll link only a representative sample: Western Journal of Medicine [1], Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine [2], Journal of Medical Ethics [3], Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law [4], BMJ [5], and a number of books published by reliable publishers, such as this one by the British Medical Association (published by Wiley) or this work on nursing law (published by Routledge). The page should be moved, however, to Covert medication, with a lowercase M. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 05:52, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've moved it to the lowercase m, and I don't believe the Anglocentric view is present anymore, as I removed most of the blathering and reduced the text to what could be sourced to review sources compliant with WP:MEDRS, using sources from India, UK, Scotland, and the USA. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:56, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep Plenty of sources show up on google [6], and also on google scholar [7]. FurrySings (talk) 06:33, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The added sources pretty conclusively establish notability. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 06:46, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I guess I didn't look right I have no problems with the nom being withdrawn. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 11:32, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I'm also inclined to keep this article as it has received considerably good coverage, with Google News searches #1 and #2 (supports the common usage in UK, with links to US and UK news) and Google Books also providing some coverage. SwisterTwister talk 19:26, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 00:56, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, UCSF Department of Psychiatry, journal-published source PMID 22635297 in addition to numerous others. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:41, 10 November 2013 (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.