Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Telecare


 * 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. Tawker (talk) 03:30, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

Telecare

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

All of this is jargon (among the worst: "physically less able"; "care and reassurance"--for a service which is meant as a substitute  for actual personal care; "most well known"); some of it is speculation; some is, such as the illustration or the trade names in the references, appears to be   clear  advertising,  if we are to have an article, we should start over, preferable with a vocabulary appropriate outside as well as in the UK  DGG ( talk ) 01:16, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:28, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:28, 4 April 2014 (UTC)


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


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger One ping only 04:55, 11 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep It's a legitimate topic in healthcare policy, covered in several books (Telecare: New Ideas for Care and Support @ Home by Puay Tang, Richard Curry, David Gann; Social Alarms to Telecare: Older People's Services in Transition by Malcolm J. Fisk; Essentials of telemedicine and telecare by Anthony Charles Norris), and a topic which is only going to become more significant. Questions of style can be fixed by editing and therefore aren't grounds for deletion. Being UK-centric can also be fixed by editing and isn't grounds for deletion (else the 100000s of US-centric articles would be deleted). Tagging the page would be a better option. The proposer seems opposed to telecare as a concept and therefore the proposal doesn't seem entirely in good faith. However I agree a rewrite would be good. There may be a weak case for merging to telehealth but the two seem clearly distinct to me. --Colapeninsula (talk) 13:07, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep It appears to be a thing - there is a 19-year-old Royal Society of Medicine journal called Journal of Telemedicine and Telecare, and while this review""says "An interesting ﬁnding from this review is the lack of national and international consensus on terminology, classification or taxonomy of devices, products or service models," my sense from a superficial scan of PubMed-indexed reviews containing "telemedicine", "telecare" and "telehealth" is that telecare is distinct from the other two, neither of which seems to refer purely to monitoring and assistance (like traditional nursing home care) as "telecare" seems to. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 15:15, 13 April 2014 (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.