Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/E Health Point


 * 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. Jenks24 (talk) 10:57, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

E Health Point

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Advertisement  Willrocks10  Speak to me  15:58, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 18:53, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 18:53, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 18:53, 3 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete (changing to Keep, see below) Although this sounds like a worthy cause, I could not find significant independent coverage about this product or its parent company, Healthpoint Services India. --MelanieN (talk) 20:38, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Crisco 1492 (talk) 22:55, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

 
 * Comment: I found a source here. Is it good enough? Bearian (talk) 19:10, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dori ☾Talk ☯ Contribs☽ 01:58, 18 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep. I went to http://www.google.co.in and searched. There is a mention in a WHO report. Following the citation there, I found in-depth coverage here. That source is an independent one, funded by Bill & Melinda Gates foundation, Rockefeller foundation, and others. There is more significant coverage, of an award for the group, at The Economic Times, which, looking at the top left corner of the website, is a publication of the Times of India, the country's largest English newspaper. There is more here, an entire article from Technology Review published by MIT, rather obviously credible. If we consider the Futon bias, and the fact that the group operates in a place where Internet penetration is low and hence reliable sources more likely to be offline or in the local language, I think there is little room to question significant coverage in multiple reliable, third-party sources, the criterion for WP:GNG. Churn and change (talk) 03:38, 18 October 2012 (UTC)


 * I'm changing my opinion to Keep based on the sources found by Churn and change. I have added both of them to the article and cleaned it up some. --MelanieN (talk) 17:04, 20 October 2012 (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.