Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Option Grid

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
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. Black Kite (talk) 22:12, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Option Grid

[edit]
Option Grid (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Only one independent third-party sources to support notability whatsoever. Note that all but one of the journal articles are written by the information contact for Option Grid. The single third-party piece from British Journal of General Practice is simply a one page blurb about it. Admirable as an project as Option Grid may be, Wikipedia is not a promotional tool for a new and non-notable medical tool. Also note that one of its creators was engaged in link canvassing. OhNoitsJamie Talk 13:48, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:04, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:04, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep-- it appears to meet notability as we have one independent source already, and a quick google search yields more, e.g.: [1], [2]. Article needs some more sources, but it doesn't seem like a true notability issue. Lesion (talk) 02:19, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The Dartmouth link is not independent; Dartmouth is the developer of the grid they describe. The Health Foundation was apparently also involved in the development of the grids, through its MAGIC program, so it is also not independent. --MelanieN (talk) 17:52, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Trisha Greenhalgh article in BJGP is not just a blurb. She is an internationally recognized author / academic on the topic. Richard Lehman can maybe vouch for her and her total independence from this Collaborative. The other papers are in high quality peer reviewed journals and have multiple authors. Ariannablaine (talk) 15:29, 26 September 2013 (UTC) — Ariannablaine (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
    • The following paper also describes the use of Grids - and comes from the Health Foundation sponsored implementation programme called MAGIC: "Patchy 'coherence': using normalization process theory to evaluate a multi-faceted shared decision making implementation program (MAGIC)."[1] These tools are a genuine attempt by an international collaboration to generate evidence based tools for patients - over 100 volunteers.Ariannablaine (talk) 15:29, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Additional 3rd party references exist and will be added to the article in the coming days. Additional references will be added so that there is atleast 1 per sentence, as per wiki guidelines.Ariannablaine (talk) 15:29, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep While it still needs some work it is notable enough. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 23:20, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • What is the next step in getting this page removed from the deletion list? Ariannablaine (talk) 17:10, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Most stay open for about a week then an admin closes the discussion according to the consensus. Lesion (talk) 17:14, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 02:50, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Decision aids. This is a brand-new (apparently created in 2012 or 2013) set of patient discussion guidelines that does not appear to have attracted enough notability for a separate article. In addition to the notability problem, the status of the guidelines is not clear from the article, which describes them as proprietary (and uses capital letters, Option Grids, as if this is a trade name), but which also says they are developed by a nonprofit and are freely available under a Creative Commons license. The "collaborative" developing the guidelines is vague and undefined; the article suggests a connection with Dartmouth; the website is maintained by Decision Laboratory, Institute of Primary Care & Public Health, Cardiff University; all in all the entire setup is very unclear. A Redirect will preserve the page history, and it could be re-expanded into a full article later if more independent sources appear. --MelanieN (talk) 17:52, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Closing administrator please note: this article was moved from Option Grid to Option grid during the course of the AfD discussion - although that may have been an incorrect move if the name actually is proprietary. Every source cited uses a capital G. --MelanieN (talk) 17:52, 10 October 2013 (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.
  1. ^ Lloyd, A (September 2013). "Patchy 'coherence': using normalization process theory to evaluate a multi-faceted shared decision making implementation program (MAGIC)". Implement Sci. 8 (1): Epud ahead of publication. PMID 24006959. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Option_Grid&oldid=1138187736"