Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Clinical Information Access Program
- 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. Owen× ☎ 14:09, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Clinical Information Access Program (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
fails WP:GNG. 3 gnews hits [1]. whilst one article says it's most popular for doctors that in itself does not mean it's notable for WP. LibStar (talk) 08:56, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —Grahame (talk) 01:57, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 12:58, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:20, 26 April 2011 (UTC)Clinical Information Access Program[reply]
- Keep I agree that most alphabet-soup state-level bureaucratic programs probably do not pass the general notability guideline. Interestingly, though, this one has been the subject of at least two studies and multiple articles in academic journals, conducted and published through the University of New South Wales' Center for Health Informatics. (Relevant links include 1 2 3 4 5.) A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 04:45, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- most of these sources are from www.chi.unsw.edu.au do we have evidence it is notable elsewhere in the health community? LibStar (talk) 06:13, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Good question. I have no personal knowledge of the field of health informatics, but my best guess is that state-level programs will primarily be studied by universities in that state, if at all. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 23:56, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- most of these sources are from www.chi.unsw.edu.au do we have evidence it is notable elsewhere in the health community? LibStar (talk) 06:13, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete/merge into New South Wales Department of Health. Neutralitytalk 05:31, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jujutacular talk 12:49, 5 May 2011 (UTC)Clinical Information Access Program[reply]- This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 10:25, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per published papers in Med. J. Aus. (e.g. 1), other journals (e.g. 2) and conference papers (3). Google news is never really the best source for assessing notability in the scientific community Jebus989✰ 12:48, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- 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.