Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/DynaMed

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. Appears to be a bad faith nomination, supported by anons with no policy-based objections, just spurious claims about article creator's source of income. -- Merope 01:38, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] DynaMed

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

• DeleteI fully support the deletion of this article as it sounds like an inferior company. I believe Leebo is trying to promote this company, and therefore i agree with the template. The article must be deleted. It is trivial for Wikipedia to support and it is not needed anyway. I suggest the deletion and remake of this article at a later stage.Critic111 16:32, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
• This entry is malformed, do you want me to help you format it properly to generate discussion? Leebo ^T/C 16:33, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

  There it should be formatted properly now and added to today's AfD log.

• Keep I am the creator of this article. I am in no way promoting the company or their medical resource tool. I am not a single purpose account, and created this article after reading some of the references indicated within it. I believe they are enough to assert notability. If anyone thinks it reads like an advertisement, please propose changes. Leebo ^T/C 16:38, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
• Comment I don't understand the reason for deletion. Can a policy be linked to. This article has more references than content. --Quirex 19:45, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

• Comment Advertising. Critic111 is saying that it's a combination of spam and non-notability. As far as I can tell though, it meets all the guidelines for a good stub article, with non-advertorial text and references to provide information to expand it. I do plan to expand it. It's only been around for a couple days. Leebo ^T/C 21:19, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

• Keep. Saying that the subject of an article "sounds like an inferior company", or that its "trivial" are not reasons for an AfD nomination. -- MarcoTolo 22:01, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Not that it is trivial, but mainly because it is advertisment. Wikipedia is not a place to advertise. Please take this article to some other site. the references are flawed. I have checked the online archives of all those references specified. There is no such article. This must be deleted ! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.183.145.136 (talk • contribs) 05:27, 17 March 2007

• Comment This is a bit more serious. Now you're accusing me of falsifying my references. Jeez, you'd think people would want hard references rather than just links. I bet I can find more references too. Leebo ^T/C 15:08, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
• Here are links to abstracts of the articles: JAMA, Journal of Electronic Resources in Medical Libraries (scroll down a bit in the contents), Annals of Family Medicine. I hope that clears up the false accusation by 59.183.145.136? All of those archives are very easily searched. Leebo ^T/C 15:18, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

• Comment: I've integrated the links into the references. After reading through them, the only reference which may be iffy is the JAMA ref—and that's only because DynaMed is mentioned peripherally rather than as a central topic. Otherwise, all the refs Leebo provided seem just fine to me. -- MarcoTolo 21:44, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

• Comment You're right, the JAMA article might be better as a "further reading" link for electronic resources rather than to establish the notability of DynaMed. Leebo ^T/C 22:46, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
• Er... nevermind, it looks great the way you laid it out, I hadn't checked. Leebo ^T/C 22:50, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

• Comment This article is small. It is not because of its length that it is to be deleted. But such a small (un-informative) article as this, is not needed in Wikipedia. Wikipedia is an online encyclopedia which is informative and contains relevant topics. Topics such as this is not worthy enough to be in Wikipedia. DynaMed is in no way relevant. It appears to me that Leebo here is trying to promote a home company to bring in profits for them. This is not right. Since you are so persistent to promote this company i will soon get you a link to a site that is meant to support only advertisments. You can do what you like there and there will be no one to stop you. Please do not waste WIkipedia space/ user time / your time arguing. I say DELETE. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.183.178.206 (talk • contribs) 07:28, 18 March 2007

• Comment Please read about stub articles. A short article is perfectly okay, that's how most articles start. I don't know how you got the impression I'm trying to promote them, since I work on a wide variety of articles. Please cite a policy or guideline that I have broken. Leebo ^T/C 14:49, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
• And if it's not too much trouble, I'd appreciate an apology for the accusation of falsifying references. Leebo ^T/C 14:52, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
• Comment I suggest this article be deleted and be re-created at a later point. It is of no use for now.Delete then recreate. Recreate but later. There must be at least a minimum amount of information in a stub. This is not enough. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.183.130.107 (talk • contribs) 11:14, 19 March 2007

• Comment Above user is slightly correct. I believe that DynaMed does not deserve it's own article. But if you are so persistent i suggest you merge this article with another "significant" article, where it can at least earn some recognition. Critic111 11:41, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

• Comment Read Wikipedia:Notability. DynaMed has been featured in numerous industry academic journals. This is more than enough to sustain an article. Leebo ^T/C 11:48, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

• Comment. Maybe I'm easily irritable, but the obvious sockpuppetry vendetta that seems to be going on here against Leebo is almost enough to make me kneejerk a keep vote. Please, everyone, read WP:POINT. ≈≈Carolfrog≈≈♦тос♦ 03:44, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
• OK, after due consideration, Keep. This article passes WP:ATT and doesn't appear to be spam or advertising. ≈≈Carolfrog≈≈♦тос♦ 03:57, 21 March 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.