Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Acronyms in healthcare


 * 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. bd2412 T 20:10, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

Acronyms in healthcare

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Originally prodded. Prod was removed. This is an indiscriminate and poorly organized list of medical industry acronyms that is 100% unsourced and of which most of the parent articles are redlinks. The list provides nothing that the parent articles cannot, and therefore is not useful. There is nothing here to explain why these subjects are notable, no reliable sources to satisfy verifiability or notability, etc. The Master ---)Vote Saxon(--- 01:10, 26 September 2017 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Delete I can't see why someone would use this to look up an acronym rather than the search function. Neither do I see people browsing this list out of interest. --Pontificalibus (talk) 06:58, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep I'll do my best to furnish some references to the article. The use of acronyms in healthcare is an independently notable and referenced entity. I'll see if I can find some lists of acronyms to act as references for this list also. --Tom (LT) (talk) 10:37, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete - this is not really a list of acronyms (initials that spell words) simply a list of abbreviations. Vorbee (talk) 10:55, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep Happy to give Tom some time. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 16:48, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete no reliable sources cover "acronyms in healthcare" as a topic that includes this list. Perhaps a medical directory of some sort does. This fails WP:N. Also, in the intro it says "acronyms commonly used in health care" is a judgement or an opinion by the article's author, not based on reliable sources and therefore fails WP:V and the list could be construed as WP:OR. Then of course, Wikipedia is not a repository for indiscriminate information WP:Indiscriminate and it is not a directory WP:NOTDIR. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 02:58, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
 * @ we arne't a repository, but I feel this as a topic is notable. IF the list was removed (which I agree is indiscriminate per your above points) would you consider retaining the article as a stub? --Tom (LT) (talk) 10:55, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes. Based on your restructuring of this article, I now agree with retaining the article as a stub or even longer. I mean, the variations on how the safety issues come about could extend this article. In any case, I am now changing my ivote from "delete" to "keep". Steve Quinn (talk) 01:06, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  J 947(c) (m) 23:11, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep A simple WP:BEFORE style search shows this topic to be highly notable, with whole books devoted to healthcare and medical abbreviations: Mosby's Survival Guide to Medical Abbreviations & Acronyms, Dorland's Dictionary of Medical Acronyms and Abbreviations E-Book, Stedman's Pocket Medical Abbreviations. There are plenty of online resources, to supoort such a list, too, Tabers Medical Dictionary, Stedman's online, HANYS Healthcare Acronyms & Terms, etc. With such sources available, verifying glossary entries is a matter of editing, not wholesale deletion. WP supports glossary style articles (MOS:GLOSSARIES) and this is one of them. If editors wanted to restrict to only abbreviations of notable topics, i.e., get rid of the red links, that would be OK, too, but it would make the glossary less useful. --Mark viking (talk) 00:15, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:43, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:43, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:43, 4 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Comment. The MOS discusses glossaries in general, that is true. But the MOS is not a notability guideline or a Core content policy. Per WP:MOS The Manual of Style...is the style manual for all Wikipedia articles...the Manual of Style presents Wikipedia's house style. The MOS is a style guide like the MLA style manual or APA style guide. I am guessing there are instances where a glossary is used in connection to a notable topic; but there has been no demonstration this is a notable topic. The above books are not indicators of notability for this topic. The content of each above book is routine information for whatever field each book covers.
 * Those books are reference works and do not show how this topic is remarkable, worthy of note, has garnered commentary in reliable sources and so on per WP:N. Therefore, Wikipedia is not a dictionary - that is the function of the above books There is a sister project for that called Wiktionary. Wikipedia is not a directory - that is also the function of the above books. This not an encyclopedic entry. It consists only of routine information. The Wikipedia article is essentially a mirror of any one of the above books. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 05:46, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
 * @ lots of reliable sources comment on the use of acronyms in healthcare, most of which are critical of it. It is an independently notable topic. --Tom (LT) (talk) 10:57, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

*Delete -- The choice of which abbreviations (not acronyms) to include constitutes original research. Rhadow (talk) 14:41, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
 * @ WP:OR isn't a reason to delete an article about a notable topic. --Tom (LT) (talk) 10:55, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Pardon me, Tom (LT), what I should have said was WP:OR instead of references to secondary sources. Rhadow (talk) 11:27, 5 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep I changed my ivote from "delete" to "keep". The article has been rewritten and restructured by . It is now a prose article rather than a problematic list article. As such, there are sufficient reliable (scholarly) sources that support this topic when viewed from perspective of acronym and abbreviation incongruities, which can result in patient safety issues. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 01:19, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep -- Rhadow (talk) 02:13, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep - Article has been significantly improved and meets all guidelines now. --  Dane talk  20:00, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep per WP:HEY. Bearian (talk) 21:05, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep clearly passes WP:GNG. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk &bull;&#32;mail) 06:02, 10 October 2017 (UTC)


 * 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.