Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Regional Health Information Organization
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 of the debate was KEEP. -Splashtalk 22:28, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The article is a POV essay (Wikipedia is not a soapbox). It cites sources and has an impressive "References" section, but that by itself doesn't make the article NPOV; in this case, it merely makes it a well-supported POV. Unless this article can be substantially rewritten to neutrally describe the opinions advanced by the cited sources, rather than echoing them from a rhetorical/opinionated stance, there's no content in it that should be kept under Wikipedia's policies. –Sommers (Talk) 09:02, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep but remove nearly all content. RHIOs are real so just cut down to a substub of verifiable NPOV information. — ciphergoth 17:20, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree that the subject is worth having an article on, but I nominated this for deletion because the article currently contains nothing (that I see) suitable for keeping, and I'm not knowledgeable enough about the subject to cut it down to a stub as you said. I was thinking it could be deleted as POV and then re-created as a viable stub when someone is able to do so (I understand this to be a valid procedure in these cases—please correct me if I'm wrong), but if you or someone else can change the article in this way now, please do so and I'll be happy to vote "keep". –Sommers (Talk) 00:07, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Guess I'll admit my ignorance on the Wikipedia way but by deleting nearly all the content the motivation for more than $200 million in expenditures in just the last year would be lost and RHIOs would appear to be an isolated concept. I'm unclear what fact or source cited in the article has raised an issue whether that fact/source has been modified to meet a desired POV and why reporting facts doesn't constitute a NPOV. While not everything is known about RHIOs it is a given that the US has a health information technology reform effort underway, it has the root causes in high cost and quality, 150 or more RHIOs have been started, and they are state, local and rural. So, what is the issue that another POV might make?- futurekansas 01:58, 24 February 2006 (UTC) 01:57, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per above, valid subject and we seem to have a knowledgeable editor, I would rather have them read the NPOV policy and help edit the article than delete it. - cohesion★talk 08:19, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per Sommers and Cohesion. --OneEuropeanHeart 04:01, 25 February 2006 (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.