Content deleted Content added
Bondegezou (talk | contribs) |
GorillaWarfare (talk | contribs) →EHealth: Comment |
||
Line 10: | Line 10: | ||
*'''Delete''' Over a year ago, I tried to find a merge, but there was no luck. This is a neologism with no clear definition. I hate to kill it, but I don't see this turning into an article with a defined subject. The term is so nebulous that I can't even suggest a redirect. Anything here probably will be obsolete by the time any article of meaning can be written under this title.[[User:Novangelis|Novangelis]] ([[User talk:Novangelis|talk]]) 20:04, 9 August 2010 (UTC) |
*'''Delete''' Over a year ago, I tried to find a merge, but there was no luck. This is a neologism with no clear definition. I hate to kill it, but I don't see this turning into an article with a defined subject. The term is so nebulous that I can't even suggest a redirect. Anything here probably will be obsolete by the time any article of meaning can be written under this title.[[User:Novangelis|Novangelis]] ([[User talk:Novangelis|talk]]) 20:04, 9 August 2010 (UTC) |
||
*'''Strong keep''' I'm a lecturer in health informatics. I teach on a module called "e-health";[http://www.chime.ucl.ac.uk/study/modules/chmegh26/] I've had a UK government research project worth £300k on "e-health";[http://www.sdo.nihr.ac.uk/projlisting.php?srtid=10] I read journals with the term "e-health" in their title.[http://www.liebertpub.com/products/product.aspx?pid=54] "E-health" gets over 18,000 hits on Google Scholar, some going back over a decade. Yes, there are problems with the term (which should be discussed in the article), but the idea that this is a neologism requiring deletion or is unworthy of a Wikipedia article is preposterous. [[User:Bondegezou|Bondegezou]] ([[User talk:Bondegezou|talk]]) 20:56, 9 August 2010 (UTC) |
*'''Strong keep''' I'm a lecturer in health informatics. I teach on a module called "e-health";[http://www.chime.ucl.ac.uk/study/modules/chmegh26/] I've had a UK government research project worth £300k on "e-health";[http://www.sdo.nihr.ac.uk/projlisting.php?srtid=10] I read journals with the term "e-health" in their title.[http://www.liebertpub.com/products/product.aspx?pid=54] "E-health" gets over 18,000 hits on Google Scholar, some going back over a decade. Yes, there are problems with the term (which should be discussed in the article), but the idea that this is a neologism requiring deletion or is unworthy of a Wikipedia article is preposterous. [[User:Bondegezou|Bondegezou]] ([[User talk:Bondegezou|talk]]) 20:56, 9 August 2010 (UTC) |
||
**'''Comment''' - This is more of a comment to Bondegezou, but I'd just like to remind you that it's generally preferable to, when discussing an AfD, disclose if you have a vested interest in the article, as your 26 edits to the page would suggest. See [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion#How to discuss an AfD]]. Thanks! <span style="font-family: Verdana">— [[User:GorillaWarfare|GorillaWarfare]] <sup>[[User talk:GorillaWarfare|talk]]-[[Wikipedia:Editor review/GorillaWarfare|review me!]]</sup></span> 02:10, 10 August 2010 (UTC) |
Revision as of 02:10, 10 August 2010
EHealth
- EHealth (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Neologism with no well-defined definition. (otoh, see http://www.jmir.org/2005/1/e1/ for a detailed review of usage of the term.) SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:12, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
- Delete - Very fuzzy article. It desperately needs cleanup, but from what I can gather, it's still a very fuzzy collection of definitions. Definitely goes against WP:NAD. I suppose it could be transwikied to Wiktionary, but even then, the sources and definitions are so unclear that I don't even think that's a terrific idea. — GorillaWarfare talk-review me! 18:21, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:54, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:55, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
- Delete Over a year ago, I tried to find a merge, but there was no luck. This is a neologism with no clear definition. I hate to kill it, but I don't see this turning into an article with a defined subject. The term is so nebulous that I can't even suggest a redirect. Anything here probably will be obsolete by the time any article of meaning can be written under this title.Novangelis (talk) 20:04, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
- Strong keep I'm a lecturer in health informatics. I teach on a module called "e-health";[1] I've had a UK government research project worth £300k on "e-health";[2] I read journals with the term "e-health" in their title.[3] "E-health" gets over 18,000 hits on Google Scholar, some going back over a decade. Yes, there are problems with the term (which should be discussed in the article), but the idea that this is a neologism requiring deletion or is unworthy of a Wikipedia article is preposterous. Bondegezou (talk) 20:56, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
- Comment - This is more of a comment to Bondegezou, but I'd just like to remind you that it's generally preferable to, when discussing an AfD, disclose if you have a vested interest in the article, as your 26 edits to the page would suggest. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion#How to discuss an AfD. Thanks! — GorillaWarfare talk-review me! 02:10, 10 August 2010 (UTC)