Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Interventionism (medicine)

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. There is consensus to keep the content. Should it be eventually merged, that's an editorial discussion that doesn't require a further extension of this nearly month-long AfD. Star Mississippi 20:14, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Interventionism (medicine)[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

@Arms & Hearts: as original nom. Article was originally proposed for deletion by Arms & Hearts, but I objected and think this should be taken to AFD. They said: "Doesn't appear to be a notable topic: I haven't been able to find sourcing beyond the single source cited, which doesn't meet WP:MEDRS." ☢️Plutonical☢️ᶜᵒᵐᵐᵘⁿᶦᶜᵃᵗᶦᵒⁿˢ 19:05, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. ☢️Plutonical☢️ᶜᵒᵐᵐᵘⁿᶦᶜᵃᵗᶦᵒⁿˢ 19:05, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. ☢️Plutonical☢️ᶜᵒᵐᵐᵘⁿᶦᶜᵃᵗᶦᵒⁿˢ 19:05, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. @Plutonical: Do you want to explain why you think the subject is notable? – Arms & Hearts (talk) 19:14, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It asserts notability and brings up cases that are notable. As such, I'd like to have a community discussion on it. ☢️Plutonical☢️ᶜᵒᵐᵐᵘⁿᶦᶜᵃᵗᶦᵒⁿˢ 20:59, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 23:42, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I actually think this is notable, but that the scope is poorly defined and too narrow in the current article. For example, here are many other sources which discuss this term in significant coverage enough to make it notable in my opinion:

(as a type of paternalism/utilitarianism favoring medical care instead of religious or ethical non-intervention, including end of life which is the topic of the article at present) [1] [2]

(as an overall attitude of "better to do something that may not work than stand by and do nothing" in cases of clinical equipoise) [3] [4]

(as a type of paternalism favoring vaccine mandates in dire circumstances like a pandemic) [5] [6] [7] [8] [9]

Just my thoughts, that if kept, it could be made more expansive to allow for more sources to be used. — Shibbolethink ^(♔ ^♕) 19:27, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. — Shibbolethink ^(♔ ^♕) 19:28, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 04:26, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Unnecessary_health_care No reason to focus on a neologism (at least it's a neologism for medical contexts) when there's an appropriate place in wikipedia already to include this materal. -- rsjaffe 🗩 🖉 19:32, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't think that is a suitable merge. The target is about unnecessary interventions for financial reasons. This article is about desperate, but well motivated, medical interventions that have only a small chance of success, or marginal effect. Of course, one may lead to the other, but they are not the same topic. SpinningSpark 13:02, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Shibbolethink. It is undoubtedly a notable issue in medicine of doing "something rather than nothing" and giving patients hope rather than forcing recognition of the true prognosis. Not sure that the title couldn't be improved though. It's not immediately clear what it means. SpinningSpark 13:09, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This relates to the prolonging life/death and end-of-life experience conversations, all of which are notable topics that fall under bioethics. This page just needs more sourcing, and I agree with Spinningspark that a new title may be more appropriate. Heartmusic678 (talk) 12:48, 10 January 2022 (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.