Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Health cash plans


 * 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 to delete. Editors are divided on whether to delete this content. The text as written when this AfD began was clearly unsatisfactory, but during the course of the AfD, Patar knight has substantially rewritten it. His rewrite was a marked improvement but I should think some additional sources will be needed in future. If they are not forthcoming I would expect that this content will end up being merged into health insurance in due course. This "no consensus" close does not preclude this outcome, which can be proposed in the normal way. What this discussion has found is that health cash plans should not become a redlink.— S Marshall T/C 21:16, 20 July 2016 (UTC)'''

Health cash plans

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Heavily WP:PROMO article created to support notability of Health Shield by the same SPA. The material not sourced to the above company's website is a WP:DICDEF. MSJapan (talk) 07:19, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete: Per nom. Promotional article. Aust331 (talk) 10:39, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. North America1000 02:33, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. North America1000 02:34, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. North America1000 02:34, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

Keep:A quick google search uncovered several reliable sources covering this topic, Including this 2006  article: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/personalfinance/insurance/2947195/Extract-more-value-from-your-cash-plan.html Also characterizing the creator of this article as an wp:SPA seems to contravene wp:AGF. Ottawahitech (talk) 07:47, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Not if you look at the fact that the editor never did anything but promote HealthShield on several articles, write an article on HealthShield, and write an article on HealthShield's major product, the cash plan. Once he did that, the editor had no further interest in contributing to the encyclopedia. Sounds like a single purpose to me.  Would you rather I cited WP:NOTHERE? MSJapan (talk) 17:36, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 02:36, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
 * what the hell does an SPA have to do with the notability of a topic? the article may be poorly written but that doesn't mean that it's not notable. Demonstrate its lack of notability, not the quality of the writing. Mr rnddude (talk) 03:13, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment - Well, here's lack of notability for you. No GNews hits, and every regular hit in the top 20 to "health cash plan" is sourced to a company that sells one.  Therefore, one is going to be very hard-pressed to find NPOV sourced in and amongst the advertisement.  Yes, it exists, but WP:ENN.  That Telegraph article isn't substantial enough for coverage, and if that's it, then that's saying something about GNG, isn't it? MSJapan (talk) 03:55, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
 * , might I request a quick google books search for "health cash plans". I'm curious what you make of it, would you still consider this for delete or not. The article most definitely needs significant work, but, is there any notability to it? Mr rnddude (talk) 05:05, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what you're finding, but I'm finding a lot of "how to use a health cash plan in investing"; "guide to selling cash plans for financial advisors", "employer's guide to health cash plans" and the like. Just because it's an investment vehicle and an employment item doesn't mean it's notable if the the only coverage is commercial in nature.  Wikipedia is not a how-to on what you should do with your money or what your responsibilities are as an employer, or how to sell a product to a customer.   Everybody sells Band-Aids, but we don't assess notability or write the article based on that fact alone. MSJapan (talk) 06:10, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
 * You have a point, I took a second look and yes, they're all how to guides on selling health cash plans. I can back deletion for this article. Mr rnddude (talk) 06:20, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Delete - Per above discussion, while there is some coverage for Health Cash Plans they take up the form of how to sell these plans, without better evidence of notability this article does not belong on an encyclopaedia. Wikipedia is not a how-to guide as MSJapan rightly point out. Mr rnddude (talk) 06:20, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, &mdash; Music1201  talk  23:49, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete instead as this could at best be acceptable but it would still need majorly better improvements, something of which is likely best simply restarted as to convince anew, with better overall. SwisterTwister   talk  04:35, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Check out WP:AFDISNOTCLEANUP. North America1000 16:30, 19 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep. The topic seems to be notable, , but the article needs work. Patar knight - chat/contributions 19:52, 18 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep – Notable topic. E.g., , , . The article is presently not promotional, per copy editing that has occurred. North America1000 16:29, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I'll point out here as well that the articles cited are personal finance how-to's - "How to extract more value from your cash plan" etc., so it's not falling outside WP:NOTHOWTO and WP:NOTADVICE, especially the Google Books refs. MSJapan (talk) 18:01, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I'll point out here as well that the articles cited are personal finance how-to's - "How to extract more value from your cash plan" etc., so it's not falling outside WP:NOTHOWTO and WP:NOTADVICE, especially the Google Books refs. MSJapan (talk) 18:01, 19 July 2016 (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.