Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/MedPage Today (3rd nomination)

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. Seems sufficient to pass GNG. If people want to discuss things like mergers and redirects, please do so on appropriate talk pages. Missvain (talk) 03:39, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

MedPage Today[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)

While the subject appears to be the publisher of some solid investigative journalism, I can't find much coverage at all about MedPage Today. Provided sources are limited to mere mentions, quotes of coverage (largely in the context of a joint investigation into opioid abuse conducted with the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel), and non-independent coverage. Online I was only able to find more of the same. Does not appear to meet WP:NCORP, and thus the redirect to Everyday Health should be restored. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 20:34, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 20:34, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 20:34, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 20:34, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 20:34, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Everyday Health: Same reasoning as the nominator. Could have just been done per WP:BEBOLD ~RAM (talk) 21:29, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Given the amount of edit warring over article recreation in the article's history, I figured that AfD was more appropriate. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 21:45, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User:Ram1055 Can you please explain and provide your justification rather than saying "Same reasoning as the nominator. Could have just been done per WP:BEBOLD". MentroPat (talk) 02:24, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This should mean you don't have any explanation User:Ram1055 MentroPat (talk) 04:34, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

MentroPat, my reasoning is very clear. The article could have just been redirected per WP:BEBOLD. It seems as though you have an obviously close connection to this article, and should probably review those guidelines. ~RAM (talk) 11:59, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for absolutely accepting by merely repeating your words that you don't have any Explanation. I don't know my having any connection with MedPage Today but since you know what I don't I ask you to illuminate me with your knowledge. You should read this report by US senate where they stated many corporate are involved in unethical practices for example bribing and all to suppress the truth and that 'obviously' implicate someone for having inverted conflict of interest with this article when they desperately try to delete an important article even when lacking any explanation to why they want so. Plus please spend some time to read what one of a medical professionals who are saviors in these notorious days of pandemic has said below. -MentroPat (talk) 20:39, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Everyday Health- not enough in-depth coverage to pass WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 00:41, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User:onel5969 Can you please explain and provide your justification rather than vaguely saying "not enough in-depth coverage to pass WP:GNG" because there tons of references available over the internet and similar within Wikipedia itself MentroPat (talk) 02:27, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - "Rosguill" possibly the problem faced by you is that if you search "Wall Street Journal" in Google News, there will be hardly any secondary sources visible until you dig real deep. Same is happening with Medpage Today. So should that suggest the page of wall street journal should be deleted for not apparently fetching enough secondary sources per your argument? It is our Wikipedia that itself has countless reference to "MedPage Today" - https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?search="MedPage+Today"&title=Special:Search&profile=advanced&fulltext=1&advancedSearch-current=%7B%7D&ns0=1 and a number of them are neither just mere references nor about just about any opioid investigations (which triggered Senate Investigation, I feel puzzled when Senate seals something, how that becomes not independent and primary sources and per my little understanding when Senate vetted someone's work it must be very recognizable. My opinion is there must be a page in Wikipedia about the 'Opioid Epidemic' as well which is a coinage of Senate and it must be undoubtedly significant and pertinent to every citizen of USA) but about like Veganism, Peanut butter test. Rosguil said they didn't find much independent sources but what I see in exact contrary there are very few primary sources in the article. Also I don't understand that how in addition to the already mentioned over 40 references in the article when we have references like as follows made others think it doesn't pass the rules! (REALLY? ARE YOU KIDDNG?) :

(please remove the quotes in case you can't find anything)

1. http://www.michaelbfriedman.com/mbf/images/Suicide_Prevention_for_MPT__PF.pdf

2. https://www.google.co.in/books/edition/Life_Disrupted/4hCiAwAAQBAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq="MedPage+Today"&printsec=frontcover

3. https://www.google.co.in/books/edition/Malignant/lKPeDwAAQBAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq="MedPage+Today"&printsec=frontcover

4. https://www.google.co.in/books/edition/You_Can_t_Afford_to_Get_Sick/WKd0wOdnaBgC?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq="MedPage+Today"&pg=PT202&printsec=frontcover

5. https://www.google.co.in/books/edition/Guns_in_American_Society_An_Encyclopedia/QeGJH48PT0kC?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq="MedPage+Today"&pg=PA26&printsec=frontcover

6. https://www.google.co.in/books/edition/Eat_Move_Sleep/cU08AQAAQBAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq="MedPage+Today"&pg=PA241&printsec=frontcover

7. https://www.google.co.in/books/edition/Clinical_Trials_with_Missing_Data/fx7gAgAAQBAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq="MedPage+Today"&pg=PA39&printsec=frontcover

8. https://www.google.co.in/books/edition/Primary_Care_of_the_Child_With_a_Chronic/qdkVnL3qUNsC?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq="MedPage+Today"&pg=PA638&printsec=frontcover

9. https://www.google.co.in/books/edition/Healthcare_Valuation_The_four_pillars_of/NIdVBwAAQBAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq="MedPage+Today"&pg=PA497&printsec=frontcover

10. https://www.google.co.in/books/edition/The_Last_and_Greatest_Battle/eGSzBQAAQBAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq="MedPage+Today"&pg=PA325&printsec=frontcover

11. https://www.google.co.in/books/edition/Handbook_of_Test_Security/xkIqAwAAQBAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq="MedPage+Today"&pg=PT31&printsec=frontcover

12. https://www.google.co.in/books/edition/High_Stakes/ju59iMfOzsAC?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq="MedPage+Today"&pg=PA204&printsec=frontcover

13. https://www.google.co.in/books/edition/My_Life_with_Temporomandibular_Tmj/2r5PAAAAQBAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq="MedPage+Today"&pg=PA65&printsec=frontcover

14. https://www.google.co.in/books/edition/The_Decline_and_Fall_of_the_United_State/LWBQAAAAQBAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq="MedPage+Today"&pg=PA160&printsec=frontcover

15. https://www.google.co.in/books/edition/HBS_Alumni_Bulletin/VARbAAAAYAAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&bsq="MedPage+Today"&dq="MedPage+Today"&printsec=frontcover

16. https://www.google.co.in/books/edition/The_Facts_of_Life_and_More/-zBHAAAAMAAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&bsq="MedPage+Today"&dq="MedPage+Today"&printsec=frontcover

17. https://www.google.co.in/books/edition/Do_No_Harm/eSgeAQAAIAAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&bsq="MedPage+Today"&dq="MedPage+Today"&printsec=frontcover

18. https://www.google.co.in/books/edition/Taser_Electronic_Control_Devices_and_Sud/dAogAQAAIAAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&bsq="MedPage+Today"&dq="MedPage+Today"&printsec=frontcover

19. https://www.google.co.in/books/edition/The_Journal_of_Health_Care_Law_Policy/OZVLAQAAIAAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&bsq="MedPage+Today"&dq="MedPage+Today"&printsec=frontcover

20. https://www.google.co.in/books/edition/Symposium/4u1CAQAAIAAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&bsq="MedPage+Today"&dq="MedPage+Today"&printsec=frontcover

21. https://www.google.co.in/books/edition/The_Law_of_Bioethics/7AsrAQAAMAAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&bsq="MedPage+Today"&dq="MedPage+Today"&printsec=frontcover

22. https://www.google.co.in/books/edition/Food_Protection_Trends/-EcsAQAAMAAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&bsq="MedPage+Today"&dq="MedPage+Today"&printsec=frontcover

23. https://www.google.co.in/books/edition/Oath_Betrayed/3OnaAAAAMAAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&bsq="MedPage+Today"&dq="MedPage+Today"&printsec=frontcover

In any case I would like to thank Rosguill for forcing me to learn rules about deletion discussion by nominating this and compelling me to work further on the article. I hope this will lead us to see a very informative article which MUST have its place in Wikipedia MentroPat (talk) 02:21, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I clicked on 4 of the above links at random, and each one of them appears to cite Medpage at most 3 times ([1], [2], [3], [4]). I found 0 independent coverage. From what I've seen of the source so far, MedPage seems like to be a reliable source on WP:USEBYOTHERS grounds, but we don't have the kind of significant coverage needed to write an article. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 03:56, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder what prohibited you from checking the first link. However I have added that in the article with the new sections. You may refer to the new additions. You are repeatedly saying you are unable to find independent sources. I want to ask why you think these references - [5], [6], [7], [8], [9] are not independent? The rule you cited about independent sources says - Is this source self-published or not? (For this question, see Wikipedia:Identifying and using self-published sources.) Is this source independent or third-party, or is it closely affiliated with the subject? Is this source primary or not? (For this question, see Wikipedia:Identifying and using primary and secondary sources. The book links checked by you are published from John Hopkins University, Willey, Penguine these are of course independent sources. MentroPat (talk) 04:25, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Everyday Health- Interesting subject having potential to become a self sufficient article, but we need multiple significant coverage about the subject for that.
Comment - Per WP:HEY the article may pass GNG, thus withdrawing my vote. MentroPat, its understandable your frustration when your article is nominated for AfD. Please be nice with other editors. They are tirelessly working to keep Wikipedia a better place. ☆★Mamushir (✉✉) 10:40, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Aren't you able to see there are too many links with significant coverage? example - [10], [11], [12], [13], [14] MentroPat (talk) 04:26, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep: I would've voted to redirect it to its parent company. But, per WP:HEY, it seems that the article is good enough to pass WP:GNG. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 13:15, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a medical professional I encounter MedPage Today frequently enough that this seems uncontroversial - articles in reliable sources like NY Times cite it as a source of information and cite experts' affiliation with the entity, etc. I have little doubt more RS can be found & cited. — soupvector (talk) 13:44, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per soupvector's references - delete the rest of my rant about this, suffice to say "3rd nomination" is not something I like to see. HaltlosePersonalityDisorder (talk) 02:00, 29 December 2020 (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.