Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Overseas doctor

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 of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 07:02, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Overseas doctor

Delete. This is an extremely POV ramble, not an article. It contains numerous inaccuracies and statements without verification. There is a need for comment, within the article NHS for example, on the use of overseas staff (and not only doctors) but this is no contribution to the discussion, and has no place in WP--Smerus 05:57, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete OR/POV without stated sources. --E ivind ^t ^@^c 15:23, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete OR/POV uncited. The bigotry is palpable. Fan1967 15:40, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not very nice to the doctors, who are only trying to help :(. M1ss1ontomars2k4 17:19, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as OR/POV —M e ts501^talk 17:43, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- getcrunk juice ^contribs 19:16, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - this is not original research. I'm one of the principal authors. Everything in this article is known to members of the first-world medical professions. The phrase "OTD" is standard medical jargon, and it has precisely the meaning given in the text. - Richardcavell 23:35, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I'd be more inclined to keep this if there was a source saying that this is a major issue of contention in the UK. The article would then need to be rewritten to conform to a more worldwide view, as we are an international encyclopedia... And then, it would certainly have to be renamed. Or, it could just be deleted. Grand master ka 00:34, 8 May 2006 (UTC) Weak Keep, upon further review. It would have to be heavily rewritten, though. Maybe it would be easier to start from scratch, under a different name. This isn't too long. Grand master ka 19:18, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'd be happy to source it - I have a medical library right here at work - but it's going to end up deleted so I won't bother. This is a major source of contention, trust me. Have a look at http://www.qphci.qld.gov.au/ and you will see this is a big political issue here in Australia. Also look at R v Mulhem, in which an OTD in Britain killed a guy and the fact that he was an OTD became a big deal (there is a presumption that a doctor from Syria just ain't as good as a British one). - Richardcavell 01:51, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Which section of that do I look at? Any news sources you can think of/dig up? Grand master ka 02:10, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This demonstrates that in Australia, OTDs are restricted from obtaining full registration and a provider number unless they're from Britain, Canada or New Zealand. This is one politician's solution - send them to the country. See Peter McCutcheon's first question here, about the regulation of OTDs. It's too much to go through for an AfD, but the Davies Commission of Inquiry Report that I linked above goes on for hundreds of pages about OTDs. - Richardcavell 02:26, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Newyorktimescrossword 02:05, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment the content of the article could be cleaned up, but unfortunately any article with this title is probably just going to become a "term" article. Could the stuff be merged with Brain drain or another article? I'd encourage all participants to recheck the deletion guidelines. I'm not sure "This is an extremely POV ramble, not an article. It contains numerous inaccuracies and statements without verification. There is a need for comment, within the article NHS for example, on the use of overseas staff (and not only doctors) but this is no contribution to the discussion, and has no place in WP" is a valid reason for deletion. - FrancisTyers 02:16, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

'delete Use? --Mario todte 19:21, 9 May 2006 (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.