Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/EMedicine

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, with a nod to WP:BEFORE. Disambiguation is a separate matter which can and should be dealt with through regular editing. Skomorokh, barbarian 16:32, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

EMedicine[edit]

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

Disputed PROD. Effectively unreferenced, as the refs are not about the topic. Does not meet the general notability guidelines, no significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. The only source about the subject is a primary source, hence the article is not verifiable. The references cited are not in relation to the organization. Per WP:ORG Chzz ► 21:46, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Zero proper sourcing, fails notability, and the article completely reads like an advertisement. _{(On another note, the article creator could have been more constructive when denying the prod other than "please propose it at AfD rather than the abbreviated process", which sounds to me like a WP:OWN issue, but that's beside the point.)}
GraYoshi2x►^talk 22:19, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep. If one clicks on the links listed on the "Find sources" line above, it should be easy to evaluate the statements "no significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" and "fails notability". --
Arcadian (talk) 22:22, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Not really, no. All I see is a bunch of emedicine.com web page links. The term is also far too generic for notability to be accurately determined through Google. It's just the word "medicine" with an extra e added to it is all.
  GraYoshi2x►^talk 22:26, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, two more sources added in addition to the three journal articles that mention it. Well respected and and widely used apparently. Google books has more also, [1], [2], [3], [4], [5] not including the ones that just refer to it as a source. I would say that even if the majority of the mentions are brief, collectively they indicate it's notable.
WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 22:55, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the citations above are fully enough to show notability. They could have been found by the nominator too. I fail to see what is wrong with removing a prod and requesting an AfD--any editor here has that right--and in this case it's very much a good thing that they exercised it.
DGG ( talk ) 23:14, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Also, note that there are currently wikipedia pages for this topic in 19 other languages. That may be a record for AfD. --
Arcadian (talk) 00:37, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Should find-out if these other language pages are specifically about eMedicine.com or more generically about eMedicine. (see my comment below proposing to move current page to eMedicine.com and redefining current page as introduction to eMedicine / disambiguation page.)
  Enquire (talk) 20:53, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep/Move and Create Disambiguation Page eMedicine.com is a notable on-line medical information resource acquired by WebMD in January 2006 WebMD Buys eMedicine: $25.5M. However, eMedicine is also understood to generically refer to electronic medicine in the same way eMail refers to electronic mail. I therefore move that the current page be moved to eMedicine.com and the current page become either a disambiguation page and/or a general introduction to electronic medicine with links to more detailed Wiki pages. In terms of on-line medical information resources, eMedicine.com should (of course) be included a list, but also include other on-line medical web resources such as WebMD, MedicineNet, Medscape, RxList, eMedicineHealth, MedHelp, iMedix, etc.. Other links should include (amongst others): Telemedicine, Virtual surgery, Computer assisted surgery, CyberKnife, etc.. Also, I noted that at least one of the External Links (EL) was generic and not specific to eMedicine.com and should probably kept on the disambiguation page or on a related page about the generic sub-topic (with links to the more specific topics). Of course if this is done, the links to the other 19 language pages should be also moved (or not) depending on whether they relate to the company eMedicine.com or more generically to the emerging field of electronic medicine.
Enquire (talk) 20:53, 11 October 2009 (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.