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 (non-admin close) RMHED (talk) 21:33, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Medpedia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

Website that is not yet operational. Medical wiki. Has been tried before. Hence fails WP:WEB. If they are so keen to start open source health content, why are they not coming to Wikipedia. JFW | T@lk 12:43, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• NDelete - fails WP:N and WP:WEB.--S_RX 13:54, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - although not yet operational, there are quite a few reliable sources: guardian.co.uk medicalnewstoday.com telegraph.co.uk pcworld.com washingtonpost.com latimes.com Ғїяеѕкатея^talk 15:59, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • They are doing a splendid job at hyping themselves. But it is not yet operational and may never take off. Nowhere does the website actually say who is behind it. JFW | T@lk 06:22, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I wrote the writeup based on newscoverage I saw, not the other way around. --Reflex Reaction (talk)• 16:27, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not everything that gets hyped in the news belongs on Wikipedia. That is why we have content and notability guidelines. JFW | T@lk 17:55, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge, into List of wikis and redirect. Not much known at present, so doesn't justify a separate article just yet. However, non-trivial news coverage so this could become a good article in the future. Tim Vickers (talk) 19:57, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Still fails WP:WEB. --CG was here. (T - C - S - E) 21:41, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge as above CharltonTilliDie^Talk/_Contribs 13:16, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 18:52, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 12:34, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep (don't merge) well referenced and prestigious partners, under development rather than crystal ball. RJFJR (talk) 15:10, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep though Medpedia is a future wiki site, it has been reported by several independent and reliable news media, so the article does comply with WP:NOT. --RekishiEJ (talk) 16:08, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: Multiple reliable sources means it meets criteria #1 of WP:WEB. --JD554 (talk) 09:10, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: (don't merge) It is already clear that this will be more than 'just another' wiki. According to the British Medical Journal even the British National Health Service will be contributing information to it. [1] Therefore the organization has achieved notability to get this amount of cooperation at this early stage (and for the other reasons already given). Also, the wiki software has undergone over a hundred modification to bespoke it for its intended purpose, so this is a seriously big project compared to most other wikis. The article just needs the editors to be free to get on and add more text (and the logo).--Aspro (talk) 16:12, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, clearly notable per prestigious partners. --Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 19:26, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. —Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 22:01, 9 August 2008 (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.