Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Babelmed

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 No consensus. There is a Babelmedia (babelmedia.com), which appears to be unrelated to Babelmed (Babelmed.net) and remains unaffected by this AfD. Jreferee t/c 00:26, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Babelmed

Babelmed (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

A few things wrong here - Firstly, there are obvious conflict of interests for the creator of the page, whose name is, un-subtly, Babelmed (talk · contribs). Secondly, there is potential copyright problems. Thirdly, French Wikipedia is also putting this up for deletion. This page does, however, have a massive Google count and our page looks aesthetically pretty good, but there's something suspicious (for me, at least) here. Montchav 10:33, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

• Comment I'm not sure how there can be objections to both conflict of interest AND copyright problems here. Presumably if it's written by someone in the organisation then they're not going to sue wikipedia about it appearing here? The fact that another wikipedia is putting it up for deletion, as opposed to having deleting it, isn't exactly relevent either. If it has lots of google hits, and therefore presumably independent sources, what's the reason for deletion? Here's a piece from the Times of Malta [1] for instance. Nick mallory 13:35, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
• weak delete There are only 60,000+ hits in Google and it appears to be an ad. However, the article is done well enough for a starter/stub. If it added some verifiable secondary sources, I may change my mind to keep. If you could place the reason the is placing this up for delettion (if different then your reasons) it may also help. --BlindEagle^{talk~contribs} 13:41, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Comment Only 60,000 Ghits?!?!?!Nick mallory 03:37, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

• I've added some references of websites which link or refer to Babelmed. No copyright problem, since the presentation text of Babelmed in french is placed under GFDL[2]. The French deletion procedure was based only on the debate about the "notoriety" of Babelmed, which I hope these links will help to prove.--Babelmed 14:48, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
• Keep If editing will fix the article than it does not qualify for deletion Ratherhaveaheart 17:39, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as article lacks secondary sources demonstrating notability. --Gavin Collins 09:49, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

  15 organisations from culture or media (among them some institutions like the European Commission) refering to Babelmed, and more than 60,000 hits in google.com, is not a demonstration of notability???? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Babelmed (talk • contribs) 12:26, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

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.