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. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 23:29, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Health care politics (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

Consensus seems to have been reached on the article's talk page that the references used in this article are shamefully bad, and have no place being used as serious citations of fact. Aside from poor references, the whole article seems to be just a fork of Health care reform or Health care in the United States used to air a laundry list of criticisms of certain healthcare systems. The article throws out lists of poorly cited theoretical arguments, treats them as fact, and then fails to analyze, discuss, or so much as qualify them.

These things add up to make a very biased, unreliable, not to mention unencylopedic article. It seems to me that this article is of poor enough quality that it would be better not to have it than to have it in it's present form. After being tagged for these issues for a period of over a year, it doesn't seem like it is going to be fixed.

This is all aside from the fact that this entire topic is covered by Health care reform in the United States, in more depth and with better sources I might add. So this article's entire existence is repetitive. – Vikingviolinist (talk) 21:02, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, but remove all poor sources. I agree with nom that cites such as Cato Institute have no business besides asserting Cato's opinions. However, these, and the claims, should be removed. If that means leaving just a stub then so be it, but the topic should have an article. We66er (talk) 21:10, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Davewild (talk) 18:56, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as simply a fork from Health care reform in the United States. Doug Weller (talk) 19:11, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 12:05, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 00:23, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete a mess, and definitely factually wrong if looked at from a non US POV 70.51.9.124 (talk) 06:16, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Delete as an unwarranted fork of policy debate covered in Health care reform in the United States. ~ Ningauble (talk) 20:12, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

keep - Noteworthy topic with serious implications. Ombudsman (talk) 22:22, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• keep- it can't just be a fork of Health care reform in the United States, as we could cover health care politics in other countries too in this article, which we couldn't easily there without people being unable to find it. We do exist and have politics you know.:) If the references currently n the article are bad, that's not grounds for deletion, but fixing them. Sticky Parkin 23:48, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Health care politics in other countries is already covered by Health care reform. – Vikingviolinist (talk) 00:13, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • It could be merged to Health care reform as suggested by nom, but (1) while the article is phrased fairly generally, as it stands the perspective and the sources are US centric, and (2) Health care reform in the United States already has substantial coverage of the topic. Notwithstanding that it could be improved, the issues are already being covered elsewhere so a separate page of pro & con argumentation is not such a good idea. ~ Ningauble (talk) 00:22, 15 September 2008 (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.