Talk:The Office of Health Economics
Latest comment: 7 years ago by ChrisSampson87 in topic Proposed content
 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||
 | The Wikimedia Foundation's Terms of Use require that editors disclose their "employer, client, and affiliation" with respect to any paid contribution; see WP:PAID. For advice about reviewing paid contributions, see WP:COIRESPONSE.
|
Creator CoI
editI created this page. I work at this company. A clear conflict of interest, agreed. But my intentions are good. The company is certainly notable. It is (perhaps) the first organisation ever to exist in the field of health economics. I won't make any more edits, but will be happy to discuss here. ChrisSampson87 (talk) 14:46, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
- @ChrisSampson87: Given that this organization is over 50 years old, I suspect that it could meet notability guidelines(please review at WP:ORG if you haven't already) but the article currently lacks independent reliable sources that indicate that it would. In short, the guidelines call for sources that give in depth coverage of the subject(not just a mere mention). The sources currently on the page do little more than establish that this organization exists. 331dot (talk) 14:51, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
- @331dot: Thanks. Agreed. But I'm wary of editing and would rather others did so. Scholarly sources are largely the organisations own outputs (e.g. ISBN 978-1-84619-171-8 and ISBN 978-0-9525601-5-9). Reference in news coverage is generally incidental, but not in short supply (see, for example, BBC News). ChrisSampson87 (talk) 15:11, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
- I understand. Thanks for your reply. 331dot (talk) 15:13, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
- @331dot: Thanks. Agreed. But I'm wary of editing and would rather others did so. Scholarly sources are largely the organisations own outputs (e.g. ISBN 978-1-84619-171-8 and ISBN 978-0-9525601-5-9). Reference in news coverage is generally incidental, but not in short supply (see, for example, BBC News). ChrisSampson87 (talk) 15:11, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
Proposed content
editDue to my conflict of interest (discussed above), I do not wish to make further edits to this article. However, I would like to provide some suggestions for material to take the article beyond being a stub.
- OHE's publications: This is perhaps the most notable aspect of OHE's work in terms of Wikipedia's notability guidelines. OHE has been regularly publishing scholarly output for over 50 years, and this output has been widely cited. Most of it can be accessed at https://www.ohe.org/publications
- OHE's competition commission: This was a particularly notable piece of work funded by the Department of Health, which reported in 2012. Information is available at https://www.ohe.org/research/ohe-commission-competition-nhs ChrisSampson87 (talk) 15:31, 7 November 2017 (UTC)