Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ISO/IEEE 11073 Personal Health Data (PHD) Standards


 * 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 as notable. The copyright concerns were examined and discussed on article talk page. — Cactus Writer (talk) 19:31, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

ISO/IEEE 11073 Personal Health Data (PHD) Standards

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Concerns with notability and copyright status. Appears to be more of an instruction manual than it does an encyclopedia article.  F ASTILY s  (TALK) 04:50, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 17:41, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 17:41, 23 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Tom Morris (talk) 14:54, 29 February 2012 (UTC)



I am the initial author of this article. I set it up because I was active in projects using the IEEE 11073 PHD standards, and that I could not find detailed information that was freely available. This is not uncommon with international standards: the standards are copyright and are often only available if you buy the - typically paying c. $100. I felt that the IEEE 11073 standards will make an important contribution to healthcare in the coming years but that the value of the work was not being disseminated - and this this would hold back the adoption of the standards, and hence it would hold back the provision of better healthcare to many.

Accordingly I attempted (imperfectly!!) to summarise the content of the family of the standards, and to provide a reasonbly in-depth overview of the technology. I thought that this would provide a good deal of the material within the base standard (IEEE11073-20601) for those who were interested in gaining in reasonably detailed insight but who did not want (initially) to buy the expensive standard document.

The images in the article were created by me - although based on those within the standard. I am indeed a contributor who has a reasonably close connection with the subject: I am not sure what the problem is with that - surely this is an advantage?

I believe that some of the standards committee who have been writing the standards may be about to contribute to this discussion and address some of the objections that have been raised.

However, it would be very helpful if those who have raised the objections could provide more detail as to what the perceived problems are and how they might be addressed.

--

Tom wrote a pretty good introduction to the IEEE 11073 Personal Health Data (PHD) standards family. This text is a good source to point to when someone asks for a quick overview of what the PHD standards are and what their implementation might mean. It would be a real pity if the document were removed from Wikipedia. Moreover, the details included are necessary to get a proper understanding of the topic.

Alpo Värri, Convener of the medical device communication standards working group in Europe, CEN/TC251/WGIV on March the 2nd, 2012.
 * Keep - Try searching google books and google scholar for "ISO/IEEE 11073", I was able to find lots of sources. See for example, , , . --Cerebellum (talk) 03:00, 3 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete - like any IEEE standard, this is a commercial product. The article was created by someone involved in the development of the standard. This is a non-notable product, and this page is only serving to increase licensees for the standard. ▫  Johnny Mr Nin ja  10:17, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep We need more articles like this. The subject is notable, and the explanation how it could be written without copyvio is convincing. Probably most standards that have come to be in active use will be widely referred to, and an encyclopedia like WP should cover them. I do not think being a commercial product is a reason for deleting anything. But it's also irrelevant, for is not a commercial product: it is produced by the IEEE and ISO, two non-profits. IEEE is the dominant international non-profit society in the field--many commercial people support its work and develop its standards, but that's the purpose of standards: to provide a common  basis for practical work. ISO is the most accepted international general standards organization. And how this increases licenses for the standard escapes me. The people who develop the standard do not receive royalties. That experts are willing to write good articles like this in important fields is a major positive development for Wikipedia,and should be encouraged.   The purpose of this article is to provide information for those who do not need the formal standard--the general audience that an encyclopedia  like Wikipedia serves.     DGG ( talk ) 04:15, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't think you understand what this is. IEEE registers standards, they operate like the patent office. They do not produce anything, the operate in more of a regulatory role. IEEE 1394 is an easy example, otherwise known as FireWire, owned by Apple and Sony. IEEE standards are owned by the creators and licensed out. They are not free in any sense. And not every IEEE standard is notable, just as not every patent is notable. ▫  Johnny Mr Nin ja  04:33, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 21:39, 11 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep This is a notable standard, supported both by IEEE and ISO. It gets 3,980 hits in Google scholar, which shows that it is being widely used and discussed.  Francis Bond (talk) 11:45, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep as per the above. I think there's enough here to justify an article, and to show that the standard is at least somewhat notable. UltraExactZZ Said~ Did 13:33, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep - third-party coverage by Cerebellum satisfies WP:GNG criteria. Diego (talk) 10:16, 16 March 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.