Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/WikiDoc (2nd 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 delete. Insufficient secondary coverage. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:26, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WikiDoc

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

Article doesnot meet notability guideline (WP:N) of Wikipedia! Burhan Ahmed | Penny for your thoughts? 07:49, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. —Burhan Ahmed | Penny for your thoughts? 07:50, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. —Burhan Ahmed | Penny for your thoughts? 07:50, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Didn't take off, despite its heavy backing. Mostly staffed/stuffed by cardiologists. JFW | T@lk 15:05, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It was notable and still is. Just because a site is not growing does not mean it was not notable. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:13, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I think Doc James is having a WP:COI with other editors here! He has restored the WikiDoc article which was deleted by consensus! Now he is actively participating in two other discussions 1 2 and voting to keep articles which have no notability on Wikipedia ! Burhan Ahmed | Penny for your thoughts? 18:49, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Advice to Doc James: I understand that you are a doctor and so I am but it doesnot mean that we have to keep fighting for projects which are not notable on WIkipedia. I agree that they may be notable in the medical field but they doesnot meet the Wikipedia guidlines! Burhan Ahmed | Penny for your thoughts? 18:49, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There is absolutely no evidence that Doc James has a conflict of interest. There is evidence, however, that the nominator does (as demonstrated in Doc James' comment below). Polyamorph (talk) 19:17, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Would support merging all the medical wikis into a single page called Online medical wiki encyclopedias including Ask Dr Wiki, Ganfyd, Medcyclopaedia, Medpedia, Radiopaedia, WikiDoc and WikiSurgery. Per COI User:Burhan Ahmed runs/works on Medicalopaedia [1] and User:Midgley runs/works on Ganfyd. All of these pages have about equal notability. On a single page it would be easier to compare and contrast them. Also many of the refs mention a few of them in the same text.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:36, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete is my vote. This article uses self-published sources (WikiDoc own site), poorly establishes notability, and is argumentative (example: "WikiDoc differs from Wikipedia in the following ways"). I have no comment regarding the new merge suggestion. — fcsuper^{(How's That?, That's How!)} _{(Exclusionistic Immediatist )}— 05:21, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment to the closer - Please review the related discussions at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ganfyd (2nd nomination) and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/AskDrWiki.com. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 17:29, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ Merge and redirect per Doc James, there are independent 3rd party sources available for this site, some of which are already cited. Merging with the articles on other similar sites is an option although they are seperate entities.Polyamorph (talk) 18:19, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, unless I'm missing something. Of the five sources in the article, only three are independent, and not one offers significant coverage - the ABC News piece, for example, devotes only 40 words to them while discussing the general topic of medical information online. I tried four or five different searches to find more convincing sources, and these two News results were as good as it got. Not quite enough under WP:GNG I'm afraid. Alzarian16 (talk) 11:20, 25 January 2011 (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.