Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Health Advocacy


 * 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 No consensus, following the major work done by Uncle G. Deathphoenix ʕ 13:42, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Health advocacy
Delete. This article is original research. It's even signed by the author. Prod tag removed by anonymous user. ... disco spinster   talk  13:24, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete And the article was posted by the author.  Emeraude 13:35, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I've put it up for Speedy Delete under db-spam. yandman  13:37, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Spam tag removed, I don't think it qualifies. enochlau (talk) 15:19, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete as original research and unencyclopedic essay. Not sure what product or service is being advertised here, so I'm not sure it is a speedy deletion candidate. - Smerdis of Tlön 14:00, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I think it's the whole field/industry that's being advertised for, so I thought it could go under "group or service". Maybe I was a bit rash in proposing a speedy... yandman  14:14, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete, an OR essay. --Nehwyn 14:54, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I posted this article as a first-time contributor to wikipedia, and I have been trying to edit it to address some of the objections raised. It is not in any way advertising.  There is no product.  I think the subject should be included in wikipedia because health advocacy is a growing field in health care and something that is important for people (consumers, patients, families, professionals etc.) to know about. This is not original research.  I just put together existing information about health advocacy to explain it to readers. I hope this submission will be reviewed again. (yesterday's unsigned posting not intentional) Mhurst 13:36, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I suspect that the opinions that this was original research were based solely upon the title and the presence of the signature. Both were easily fixed.  This appears, to me, to be an encyclopaedia article on the subject of health advocacy that cites 17 sources.  There are things wrong with it, such as its poor introduction that doesn't use summary style, its myopic focus upon the United States, and its lack of sourcing for an entire section, but fixing them doesn't require an administrator to use administrator tools.  Keep. Uncle G 17:03, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
 * What troubles me is that it seems to be trying to justify the existence of a non-notable field/service, in order to generate free exposure/publicity/whatever. A sort of indirect advertising, if you will. Then again, maybe it's a good faith article about something that happens to be unknown outside the US. yandman  08:22, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
 * What makes you think that it is unknown outside of the United States? Uncle G 09:30, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
 * My bad, I found a few UK sites too, linking it to the NHS's PFIs. yandman  09:42, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
 * And I was just about to link to them for you! &#9786;  For others' benefits, see this, this, and this.  Hence the globalize on the article. Uncle G 10:07, 11 October 2006 (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.