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 keep. John254 02:16, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Clearhealth[edit]

Clearhealth (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

Contested PROD. PROD reason was "notability". Article about a piece of open source software in use in health organisations. Article does still read a bit like an advert. role^player 11:14, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. After reading the notability guidelines it seems that certainly "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be notable." that threshold is established. A google search shows substantive coverage from ZDNet, OsNews, Slashdot, and many more as well as consistent coverage in the Open Source Healthcare site of record site LinuxMedNews.com . Furthermore many resources covering the topic in the medical field are not available online such as the leading magazine publications and things like VistA Healthcare News which this month features ClearHealth.

Secondly "deletion due to lack of notability is inappropriate unless active effort has been made to find these sources", it seems like any reasonable effort conducted reveal the results mentioned above which are clearly substantive and independent and meet the basic notability guideline. This article was also in response to an article request.

Finally the guideline of "When discussing whether to delete or merge an article due to non-notability, the discussion should focus not only on whether notability is established in the article, but on what the probability is that notability could be established" it seems that even if you feel notability is not now established there is a strong probability it can be.

How is this article not notable in the context of this one [1] ? Both are the largest open source systems for powering healthcare settings, VistA is for in-patient, ClearHealth is for outpatient. ClearHealth ranks higher on sourceforge and freshmeat than the VistA system? It powers the largest open source healthcare outpatient system in the country, Primary Care Coalition, as referenced in the article and in this months VistA Healthcare News. How can something be an advertisement for an open source project which is free in dollar terms and free under the GPL software license?—Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.56.36.248 (talk) 18:43, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Added additional numbers with citations from the California Healthcare Foundation and VistA & Open Healthcare News. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.56.36.248 (talk) 23:16, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Needs a lot of work to assert notability, but it's there. A rewrite, including some numbers, can make it wothy keeping. 9Nak (talk) 12:40, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. I am just a novice to wikipedia but I am a physician and a hobbyist in open source. My opinion is that a clearhealth article is notable based on the awareness of it in the medical community, it has been reviewed and discussed by NIH, NLM and CDC and from my understanding is likely to be certified by CMS for funding assistance which is a very short list. Having the entry is consistent with other entries already in wikipedia. I do agree that the article could use some work. —Preceding unsigned comment added by John.r.hathaway (talk • contribs) 05:26, 13 June 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.