Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/MedHelp

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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. WjBscribe 01:08, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] MedHelp

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

Notability not established or sourced per WP:WEB. RJASE1 Talk 05:21, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Keep. MedHelp is notable and should stay on Wikipedia for 3 reasons. 1. It was founded in 1994 and is one of the first Healthcare community sites on the Internet. It precedes by several years, sites such as WebMD, Revolution Health and HealthBoards, all of which have articles on Wikipedia. 2. According to media measurement services such as HitWise and CommScore it is among the Top 10 largest healthcare online healthcare communities on the Internet, with 2.5 million users per month. 3. Several MedHelp articles have been referenced by wikipedia authors in their articles on topics such as Dyshidrosis, Proteinuria etc. Fdesouza 05:55, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

  • Weak delete unless reliable sources provided. The external links in the article aren't references. There are none in Google News Archive; Google Books turns up some 70 listings as a "resource" for one thing or another, all trivial that I can find. There are placards like this and this that provide some verifiability but seem to be based on self-reported data. There's this origin story. Alexa rank is 8900. It doesn't quite add up to enough.-- Dhartung | Talk 07:36, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
    • Change to weak keep based on new sources, although none really seem to constitute major coverage. Medhelp seems to have credibility that also-ran medical sites lack, so I'm happy to have it here on that basis.--Dhartung | Talk 07:43, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Weak delete Nothing at present to indicate this entry isn't just another advert, no reliable sources as per Dhartung. - Iridescenti (talk to me!) 09:14, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Based on the feedback, I have added sources -- one article from Time Magazine, 3 articles from the Wall Street Journal and an interview on the US Department of State Global Issues Magazine, all highlighting the work that MedHelp.org does. Is that sufficient or should I add more sources? Fdesouza 22:58, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
  • In addition to the sources above, 22 medical-related articles on Wikipedia (eg Dyshidrosis, Milton Diamond, Proteinuria, Addison's disease, Swyer syndrome, Nicotine gum, Vaginoplasty, Diabetes mellitus type 1, Adverse effect (medicine), Androgen insensitivity syndrome, HLA-DQ8, Herpes simplex, HLA DR3-DQ2) cite articles from MedHelp as sources. Doesn't it make sense that we would have an article on MedHelp itself on Wikipedia? Fdesouza 23:39, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
    • Be aware that's basically a inclusion is notability argument, which is circular. Just because other editors have used it as a source does not mean that there are sources about it, i.e. notability.--Dhartung | Talk 07:43, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Change to Keep in light of additions from Fdesouza, it now appears fine & State Dept reference at least seems to back up notability claims. Although I shudder to think what 'Vaginoplasty' involves. - Iridescenti (talk to me!) 00:41, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
    • Vaginoplasty is everything from repair of torn skin/muscle after birth to purely cosmetic shaping of the labia or clitoris. --Dhartung | Talk 07:43, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. Seems to possibly meet our current inclusion standards. The age of the site plus the assertions of importance outweigh my concerns about sourcing. --- RockMFR 01:12, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep based on the current sources. I had never heard of it before, but it seems I should have.DGG 03:19, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep WP:IDON'TLIKEIT but, it meets WP:WEB criteria with newly provided sources. Jerry 19:54, 31 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.