Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Doctor Shortage


 * 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. A valid topic that needs cleanup, not deletion. Tone 15:01, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Doctor Shortage

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Despite the plethora of references, this is still a synthesis of ideas and is substantially an Essay or Original Research, and I can't see it becoming anything different. Even the assertion that there is a doctor shortage in place X can be controversial, as I have seen arguments that there are sufficient resources badly managed or allocated in the health system of X. Localised doctor shortages can be adequately covered in the main articles on the health system of each country concerned. dramatic (talk) 23:28, 16 August 2009 (UTC) people live long and natural lives and have the benefit of the medical technology that our high taxation has paid for (not just for members of congress). Let medical knowledge grow in America and if it faces censorship by the elite (greedy ones), then let it grow in the free encyclopedia Wikipedia. The doctor shortage is real and lives are at risk now, articles about it are certainly the most viewed on Wikipedia, lets not censor the facts. (the lives you save may be those in your  family and your neighbors). (talk about overpopulation is a real disregard for our species). —Preceding zsky comment added by Zsky (talk • contribs) 13:28, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep mainly needs rewriting in paragraph form, and further expansion. Topic is notable, and article is a useful start.    DGG ( talk ) 23:37, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Strong keep: even though the article is rather poorly written at present, it is an obviously notable, arguably widespread, and adequately referenceable topic, and merits an article. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:51, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions.  -- – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 00:34, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Tag it for all the work that's needed — prose, inline citations, format references, world view (I note there are numerous Georgia references), and whatever else is needed. Notability is established, and preliminary research and an outline are present. I may take a crack at it if it's kept. (No promises.) Novangelis (talk) 01:42, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Very weak keep The concept is too broad for an article since a doctor shortage somewhere (or in some field) in the United States, for instance, doesn't seem to have anything to do with a doctor shortage in, say, Cameroon. This may well be, technically, WP:OR because I doubt there's a source saying that there is any overarching cause or connection between doctor shortages all over the world, which this article hints at. "Doctor shortages in poor countries", just possibly "Doctor shortages in the European Union" and, best of all, a bunch of "Doctor shortages in Foo" would really work better and make for actual articles that cohere. Nevertheless, the quickest way toward actual articles would seem to be to keep this page in place so that someone might salvage the sources out of it and create the real thing. I moved the page to "Doctor shortage" with a lowercase "s", per some WP:MOS guideline. Actually, it probably ought to be plural, another indication that something is very wrong with the concept of this page. -- Noroton (talk) 14:00, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Merge to Physician, keeping the redirect At this time, this incomplete page would be better placed as a new section at Physician, where it can lose its bias towards recentism (e.g., in the 1980s, the US was looking at a physician surplus) and include proper context (would we need as many physicians if we had more nurse practitioners?).  IMO it's also appropriate for the main article for any career to address these kinds of supply-and-demand issues.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:16, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
 * strong keep This is an important issue in America today, most Christians would like to see


 * Keep This is an important topic, though the article is poorly written, poorly sourced, and certainly needs some npov work. I'm not sure if there is room on the physician main page for this so I'm less enthusiastic about a merge. Fuzbaby (talk) 05:14, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Weak keep The article needs work and needs to demonstrate that it isn't just WP:OR, but from glancing at the sources it looks like that can be achieved.  04:19, 23 August 2009 (UTC)  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Narthring (talk • contribs)
 * 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.