Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Health Action International


 * 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. Withdrawn by the nominator. (non-admin closure)  M h hossein   talk 12:53, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

Health Action International

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

promotional article for organization without demonstrable notability. inadequately referenced organization. Most of the references are about the  problems they try to solve. Some are press releases extensively quoting the organization. Some are mentions. Not one is a third party source substantially about the organization. Specifically: 1. is by the organization 2. is an inclusion on a listing. 3,4,5,6, 7, 8, 9, 10 are about snakebite. Some mention the organization, or are apparently press releases by its staff. 11,12,13,14,15 are about insulin shortages.Some mention the organization, or are apparently press releases by its staff, or information derived from the organization 17,18,19, similarly.  DGG ( talk ) 16:13, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions.  CASSIOPEIA(talk) 17:19, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions.  CASSIOPEIA(talk) 17:19, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions.  CASSIOPEIA(talk) 17:19, 14 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Thank you for helping to improve the article. With regards to the references I have rewritten the article so the numbering of the references might not correspond anymore to the above numbering system. The following are third party newspapers that ask for HAI's opinions on the subject and should show that they are an expert on the problem that the organization is working on. They are all third party references.

Refs added later:

2. This is a posting by the WHO that HAI is a certified WHO actor so that should show that they are notable. 3. Should I remove all references that point to the org's own web page? I don't see that as necessarily bad and requiring deletion of the page but if they have to go they can. 4. I deleted a reference about snakebite that does not specifically ref HAI. 5. The Lancet article is RS and specifically references HAI's study so that is both notable and third party and not primary research. 6. BMJ is a RS and references HAI specifically. 7. I don't see this as a press release as Nessa Childers, Member of the European Parliament is talking about the issue and mentions a press release by HAI. I don't see any particular press releases in the references. And none of the authors seem to work for HAI. Did I miss one?

This might be special pleading but this about a non-profit working to bring good scientifically approved medicines to Africa and prevent deaths. What is wrong about that?--Akrasia25 (talk) 18:00, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Being a "certified actor" doesn't imply notability its a list of everyone they work with that isn't a government  DGG ( talk ) 18:13, 19 May 2019 (UTC)


 * The BMJ article is about a study where the organization was one of the three sponsors. It is not about the organization. Diito about the one in the Lancet.  DGG ( talk ) 01:42, 15 May 2019 (UTC)


 * I added a history section based on three books I found.  I have ordered another book on Amazon by expedited shipping and hope it will arrive in time as it is a second hand book here in the US. --Akrasia25 (talk) 11:07, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
 * All 3 indicate very short discussions--one is a single page.  DGG ( talk ) 18:13, 19 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep. There appear to be multiple references from very reputable sources.Rathfelder (talk) 15:18, 17 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep In fairness, I did help contribute toward the page. The page has been mostly rewritten since it was tagged as an Articles for deletion. The article was improved by addition of many new references and removal of some that were too closely associated with HAI.  DGG brought up some valid concerns, which I think have been addressed and the article has been much improved by this process. Waughd (talk) 15:02, 19 May 2019 (UTC)dwaugh


 * AfD withdrawn, Keep' It's improved enough. It's no longer very promotional, and notability is at least borderline. I usually suggest deleting the combination of borderline notability  AND strong promotionalism, butthis is no longer in that category.  DGG' ( talk ) 18:16, 19 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Thank you for the comments and for removing the AfD on the article. I learned a lot and will be more careful in article creation in future.--Akrasia25 (talk) 03:13, 20 May 2019 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. <b style="color:red">Please do not modify it.</b> 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.