Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Certified Health Physicist


 * 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. L Faraone  02:31, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Certified Health Physicist

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

The article appears to be copied from a course catalog description from a technical college with no verified sources. I like to saw logs! (talk) 04:50, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:44, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:44, 15 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete No references, no verification at all. This appears to be a non-notable certificate, issued by a non-recognized specialty board, which doesn't actually license the holder to do anything. "A certification by the ABHP is not a license to practice and does not confer any legal qualification to practice health physics." From this article it's not even possible to understand what health physicists do. There is some explanation at Health physics but I would not recommend a redirect because of the unverified nature of this title. --MelanieN (talk) 03:27, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep - While the article certainly needs work and more references, this is a real certificate, and the AHP is the primary professional and licensing organization for Health Physicists. A poor article is not a reason to delete, but an incentive for improvement if the topic is notable. PianoDan (talk) 13:59, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Why? There isn't a sentence that I would keep in such an improved article. And I believe that despite the bad prose, the article is woefully unnecessary and not notable enough to appear here. It wouldn't be the topic of discussion in a verifiable source. There's no books or journals written on this subject. It's a dead end article. There's also a better article receiving six times the traffic, at Health physics. I like to saw logs! (talk) 21:02, 19 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 19:46, 22 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep I added three references to the article, two of which are secondary. The secondary refs show that this is a real certification and the OOQ article, put out by the Department of Labor, shows that it is a required certification in some government and corporate jobs. There is a university course devoted to the certificate exam. Given that this is the primary certification of the field of health physics, I consider it notable. If the consensus is against notability, however, at the very least, content in the lead and references should be merged into Health physics --Mark viking (talk) 22:43, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete Or merge anything worth keeping into Health Physics. The references all seem internal within the small health Physics community which seems unrecognized by the medical or physics communities. I think this makes the subject non-notable. Dingo1729 (talk) 03:36, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I am a physicist, and I certainly recognize the notability of the health physicists working at my lab. PianoDan (talk) 13:11, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
 * The subject of the article is not "Health physicists" but rather the certification. Health physics and health physicists are covered in the Health physics article. Do you have any better sources for the certification which would warrant anything more than a sentence in Health physics? Dingo1729 (talk) 15:48, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
 * The first reference from AAPM is an association external to the field and recognizes the certificate as a valid qualification. The second reference, an article in the Occupational Outlook Quarterly, is produced by the Department of Labor and is well outside the field. It also recognizes the certificate. --Mark viking (talk) 16:49, 29 March 2013 (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.