Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/EMix

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. Bare assertions of significant coverage cannot overcome Bakazaka's detailed (and unrebutted) analysis. T. Canens (talk) 00:36, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

EMix[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Google news comes up with one peice of news and it is a press release. https://www.healthcareitnews.com/press-release/pacsgear-adds-emix-open-image-exchange Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 02:19, 21 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep per WP:SKCRIT #1. No argument has been made for deletion. The nominator has mentioned that there is only one result on Google News, which is not overwhelmingly surprising, considering that this article is about a technology in the medical field and healthcare industry. A better search would also involve Google Scholar. MarkZusab (talk) 03:06, 21 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. On the other hand, as a technology in the medical field, Google Scholar comes up with significantly more than one result. Note that many of these are merely mentions of the phrase "electronic medical information exchange", and do not actually discuss the technology this article is about. However, there are also many sources discussing the actual technology. This may contribute to notability. MarkZusab (talk) 03:06, 21 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:02, 21 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:02, 21 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:03, 21 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep per MarkZusab. Mosaicberry (talk) 14:57, 21 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as WP:PROMO. The above !votes do not distinguish between the generic term "Electronic Medical Information Exchange" and the specific product name "eMix". This article is a promotional brochure for the product. Bakazaka (talk) 19:13, 21 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oddly, that is exactly what I tried to do when I stated "Note that many of these are merely mentions of the phrase "electronic medical information exchange", and do not actually discuss the technology this article is about." You are correct that most of the sources use it as a generic term, but there are a few sources that actually discuss eMix: [1] [2] [3]. There are also sources from publications including Radiology Today, 24x7 magazine, Campus Technology, and Imaging Technology News. MarkZusab (talk) 15:08, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 04:04, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Is there any coverage available beyond the coverage around the original press release? All the references are all within 3 days of each other which means they are all covering a single event or action which would not be notable. The company described in this article should have significant extended coverage across multiple channels. Their website certainly doesn't have any info on it and the small link at the bottom forwards to a different company.ScienceAdvisor (talk) 21:06, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per MarkZusab's sources. This topic appears to have received WP:SIGCOV over a WP:SUSTAINED period of time. For example, the Radiology Today article was from 2010, and the IEEE Spectrum article was from 2017. feminist (talk) 03:25, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- It "appears to" until you actually access and read the sources. For example, the entire coverage of eMix in the IEEE conference paper is An example of a cloud-based system includes the Electronic Medical Information Exchange (called eMix) (Sultan, 2014) that allows health care providers and patients to pervasively access medical reports. Do you think that is WP:SIGCOV? Let's follow the reference to Sultan, 2014. Sultan, 2014, the basis for that single sentence of "coverage", does not mention eMix or Electronic Medical Information Exchange at all. The ITN source is a lightly edited press release. The Radiology Today not only repeats the company's own PR, it does it alongside quotes from a company executive. The Campus Technology article is a lightly reworded/expanded UCSD press release from a few months prior. Whatever 24x7 mag is, the 2 paragraphs in their article get their information from the "DR Systems vice president of business development" (that's the PR/sales guy). Did I miss one? Right, the Springer book. One paragraph on eMix on page 10, containing the company's own description of its product, cited to the company's website. Since you've cited WP:SIGCOV, you undoubtedly remember the part where the coverage has to be independent, so I don't have to remind you why this isn't WP:SIGCOV. Bakazaka (talk) 07:25, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Scott Burley (talk) 02:40, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: We still need a bit more commentary on MarkZusab's sources
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 20:28, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I've started a discussion on the reliable sources noticeboard to determine whether the cited Xconomy and HealthLeaders articles contribute to eMix's notability. You can participate at WP:RSN § Xconomy and HealthLeaders for eMix — Newslinger talk 00:07, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This company hasn't gone anywhere and didn't reach significance. Website has nothing - I guess it's owned by IBM now? An example of a notable company in the space of medical image sharing is Ambra Health. II | (t - c) 06:42, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- @MarkZusab: can you comment on @Bakazaka:'s insights above? All that is currently cited is from 2010, so we can't even say anything current about this company. And we can't conflate the technology and the corporate entity, which may have been absorbed by an IBM subsidiary "Merge Healthcare" at some point given what I see on its opaque and extremely limited corporate website. II | (t - c) 08:51, 18 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
delete per nominators rationale--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 10:27, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per User:MarkZusab and User:Newslinger's new sources for citations.UtopianPoyzin (talk) 02:12, 18 May 2019 (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.