Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Computational health informatics
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This is an old revision of this page, as edited by The Blade of the Northern Lights (talk | contribs) at 21:50, 16 January 2012 (Closing debate, result was delete). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.Revision as of 21:50, 16 January 2012 by The Blade of the Northern Lights (talk | contribs) (Closing debate, result was delete)
- 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 delete. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 21:50, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Computational health informatics (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
No evidence at all that this is a distinct branch of health informatics or computer science; the existence of one university lab by that name is just a name for a working group, not evidence of notability. The abstracts of the papers at the NSF workshop asserted to contain references to the field do not even use the term. DGG ( talk ) 21:34, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:00, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:00, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Per DGG and the comment on the talk page by the author admitting this is not yet a well-established term or field. —Ruud 04:12, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - even the author essentially admits that the article is original research, but I suspect it's really bollucks. Bearian (talk) 22:40, 12 January 2012 (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.