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. The consensus of this discussion is that there have been sources produced that establish notability. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 17:25, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ganfyd

[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Non-notable website as require per WP:N and WP:WEB. The website doesnot meet the criteria for both policies. Burhan Ahmed | Penny for your thoughts? 06:17, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. —Burhan Ahmed | Penny for your thoughts? 06:23, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. —Burhan Ahmed | Penny for your thoughts? 06:23, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: does not meet two guidlines of WP:WEB

The website or content has not won a well-known and independent award from either a publication or organization.
The content is not distributed via a medium which is both respected and independent of the creators, either through an online newspaper or magazine, an online publisher, or an online broadcaster; except for trivial distribution including content being hosted on sites without editorial oversight (such as YouTube, MySpace, Newgrounds, personal blogs, etc.).
The sources mentioned are not Independent of the subject and the website doesnot have significant coverage.
It is a website with a few editors editing on daily purposes link and mostly it is a dead website.
The articles mostly in it are unsourced stubs mostly copied from Wikipedia or other free medias Burhan Ahmed | Penny for your thoughts? 06:31, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment:From its first nomination till to date this article has not improved from a start-class to a C or B class article. The goal for every article on Wikipedia is to get featured! This article is not going to get expand even in the next coming months because it has no notability, no distinguishing features, no large userbase Burhan Ahmed | Penny for your thoughts? 03:55, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The page has been covered in respected professional journals and is indexed in the medical-profession search engine TRIP (which is no small thing and could be considered as fitting in spirit "The content is distributed via a medium which is both respected and independent of the creators, either through an online newspaper or magazine, an online publisher, or an online broadcaster"). Wickedjacob (talk) 06:33, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I've not seen this written any where, but I was under the impression it was bad form to vote on a AfD you initiated. Not trying to make trouble, just wondering. Wickedjacob (talk) 06:37, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- - Comment - not necessarily, you can vote to Delete as nominator of the subject of the AFD, but that's it. Barking Fish 12:05, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
further comment Also, I hate to be a jerk but the nomination came from a user who is very active on medicalopaedia, which is an ad-supported website with similar goals to the subject of the article in question. I'm suspicious about WP:COI. Wickedjacob (talk) 06:47, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment:The AfD is indepenedent of my link to medicalopedia, the decisions made on Wikipedia is for the benefit of this website and decisions made on Medicalopedia are for the benefit of that website. It has nothing to do with rationalization of any of the two projects or just making mess on Wikipedia. I hope you can understand! Secondly the article was also nominated before but the consensus was NO RESULT; so a through discussion keeping in mind the old one would be better rather than discussing who nominated it and why ! Burhan Ahmed | Penny for your thoughts? 06:55, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Per nominating reasons. Η936631 (talk) 07:49, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Notability limited to a small group of users. JFW | T@lk 10:33, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Notability of pages on TV shows is only for a small group of users yet we do not delete these.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 06:32, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I'm inclined to agree with the nominator on this one, fails for notability, fails for WEB inclusion guidelines, and with it being so restrictive (registered med. practitioners only) it doesn't look like it will get any better soon. Alexa rank for this site is 642,612. It gets little traffic, little usage, not worth an entry here. Burn it with fire. Barking Fish 12:03, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This site has been covered in medical journals and has further coverage in publication. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:42, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Covered in Medical journals, and, as a larger medical Wiki, is especially notable. Ronk01 talk 22:24, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. [Declaration of previous involvement: I nominated the article for deletion in October 2009; the result then was "No consensus".] I was invited to comment by Burhan Ahmed. There has been little change in the article since the previous AfD. Again, the references mention Ganfyd only briefly; they do not provide significant coverage. Axl ¤ [Talk] 09:37, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It is unclear to me why I have been invited to comment while User:Midgley has not. Axl ¤ [Talk] 10:47, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

He had been invited on 10:25, 14 January 2011 (UTC); you can see User_talk:Midgley#Nomination_of_Ganfyd_for_deletionv Burhan Ahmed | Penny for your thoughts? 11:13, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I would remind you that "inviting" people to comment could be construed as WP:Canvassing, which would be grounds for invalidation of thej result of this AfD. Ronk01 talk 19:31, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, my mistake. Thanks for pointing it out, Burhan. Axl ¤ [Talk] 09:27, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Have people tried to find third party refs? Here are a bunch in books [1] and a number more from google scholar [2] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:37, 15 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]

For what it is worth I do not work with or on any of these other sites. It only takes a quick look to find a fair number of references for all these sites. Why not improve rather than attempt to delete. In this edit you removed your association to http://medicalopaedia.com/ [3] which is not better supported by refs than any of the other sites that have been put up for deletion.

I have researched the medical wikis that are available online for a paper that is currently in publication. Could you please link to something which shows I have a WP:COI? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:07, 16 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 [4] and User:Midgley runs/works on Ganfyd. All of these pages have about equal notability.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:36, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The sources referenced in the article, as well as the many blue-chip sources found by the Google Scholar and Books searches linked above, demonstrate a clear pass of the general notability guideline. Phil Bridger (talk) 22:25, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - WP:WEB states that a website is considered notable if it meets any one of the criteria, listing the ones it is not in the manner in the nomination is an attempt to misrepresent the guideline. I'm also concerned about the apparent COI that has been mentioned previously. -- Iscariot (talk) 17:34, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - academic notability firmly established in references - David Gerard (talk) 11:36, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - references and WP:WEB.--BabbaQ (talk) 21:56, 20 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.