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. The Nordic Goddess Kristen ^{Worship her} 00:04, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Health systems management. I cannot see how this can possibly be notable. Wikipedia is not a directory of types of employment. This is just indiscriminate information. I prodded it. The prod was removed (fine) with no comment regarding why (less fine). So now we should open it up to community scrutiny and consensus. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 22:43, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep We have articles on Electrical engineering and Acting for instance. Any notable profession is eminently suitable for an article. This one is widespread and often in the news, often with political controversy. There are many books on the subject and endless academic and political reports. There is much that could be covered in this article. It is unfortunate that the article currently does none of this, but it can grow. SpinningSpark 02:22, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 11:54, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Reluctant keep Poorly crafted article, but could fairly easily be completely rewritten into something useful —G716 <^T·_C> 15:30, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, Only If Of course the article itself is horribly written and it hurts my profession to even look at it. I believe it could grow into something meaningful if the creator or other editors are willing to add more info and reference to the article. Dumaka (talk) 15:16, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, Only If I will continue working on improving the article if it is not deleted in the next several days. I am hoping to interest others in doing so also. The main reason I wanted to put this page up on Wikipedia in the first place is because of the ongoing confusion in the healthcare profession between health systems, health information systems, and health informatics. There is also considerable confusion between equivalent master's degrees (i.e. CAHME-accredited programs with titles such as MHA, MBA, MSHA, MS, etc.). Dumaka and others - specifics about what you think needs to be changed about the article would be helpful. Thanks. Angarman (talk) 17:22, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This article looks a lot better now. I vote that we should definitely keep it. Dumaka (talk) 13:02, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"For management of health information systems, such as electronic medical records, see Health information management."

This article does not necessarily address PHI, HIS, or EMR. This is more of a systems approach to how healthcare is managed and addressed in the 21st century. The reference to HIS should not be merged with this article as to the fact that they have two separate meanings and address two different issues in healthcare. Dumaka (talk) 13:22, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This was added by G716, 15:41, 24 Jan. The addition may make sense; I remember disambiguating 'health information management' from 'health systems management' for students at the undergraduate level on several occasions. Angarman (talk) 22:40, 26 January 2009 (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.