Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Integrating the Healthcare Enterprise

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. (non-admin closure) Michaelzeng7 (talk) 01:55, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Integrating the Healthcare Enterprise[edit]

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

This article has survived for more than eight years but it still lacks any real evidence that it has any notability outside healthcare circles. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 09:08, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

keep there's nothing wrong with domain-specific articles. and more to the point, Healthcare comprises around 18% of US GDP so it's hardly some fringe sector, it is a major and central one. We have plenty of articles about different political science theories for example, most of which would never have graced the pages of the New York Times or other mainstream media. A google news archive search returns dozens or more hits, like this, And even hits in foreign language press. This subject is clearly notable, subject to multiple and detailed treatment in many different publications and not simply obscure ones. The Article itself needs improvement, assistance requested.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 12:26, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:33, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:33, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:33, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There are thousands of results on Google scholar, many from peer-reviewed respected medical journals. Indeed, it is notable mostly within that community, but that community could easily be much larger than other communities who have their articles in Wikipedia, so is no way grounds for deletion. The article itself was horrible, just a cut-n-paste from the organization's web site. I had to spend a few minutes digging to get an idea of who they really are and what they do. Will try to rescue. I would say long before this one goes, Cross Enterprise Document Sharing should go, which is just one document produced by this organization. W Nowicki (talk) 17:56, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - lack of notability outside the health care sector is not, of course, a valid ground for deletion. There are numerous perfectly legitimate articles that are not notable outside their sector or niche. What was a valid basis for deletion was the unsourced and advertsorial state when it was proposed. This has now changed due to sterling work by User:W Nowicki which has established notability. The Whispering Wind (talk) 00:41, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, although always more to do on it. Could someone review if all the complaint tags are still needed? W Nowicki (talk) 15:50, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

agreed, excellent work W Nowicki.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 16:20, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed the three tags because the concerns have now been met. However, I think that the sponsorship section does need sourcing and I have tagged it accordingly. I had a quick look but have not readily found a good reference. The Whispering Wind (talk) 16:21, 5 August 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.