Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Medpedia: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
Keep |
|||
| Line 7: | Line 7: | ||
*'''Keep''' - although not yet operational, there are quite a few reliable sources: [http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2008/jul/24/politics.it guardian.co.uk] [http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/115950.php medicalnewstoday.com] [http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2448354/Medpedia,-the-medical-Wikipedia,-allows-patients-to-diagnose-themselves.html telegraph.co.uk] [http://www.pcworld.com/businesscenter/article/148973/next_a_medical_wikipedia.html pcworld.com] [http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/07/23/AR2008072300256.html washingtonpost.com] [http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/technology/2008/07/medpedia-brings.html latimes.com] [[Special:Contributions/Ғїяеѕкатея|<font color="#FF17FF">Ғїяе</font><font color="#FF4800">ѕка</font><font color="#FF1C00">тея</font>]]<b><sup>[[User talk:Ғїяеѕкатея|talk]]</sup></b> 15:59, 28 July 2008 (UTC) |
*'''Keep''' - although not yet operational, there are quite a few reliable sources: [http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2008/jul/24/politics.it guardian.co.uk] [http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/115950.php medicalnewstoday.com] [http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2448354/Medpedia,-the-medical-Wikipedia,-allows-patients-to-diagnose-themselves.html telegraph.co.uk] [http://www.pcworld.com/businesscenter/article/148973/next_a_medical_wikipedia.html pcworld.com] [http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/07/23/AR2008072300256.html washingtonpost.com] [http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/technology/2008/07/medpedia-brings.html latimes.com] [[Special:Contributions/Ғїяеѕкатея|<font color="#FF17FF">Ғїяе</font><font color="#FF4800">ѕка</font><font color="#FF1C00">тея</font>]]<b><sup>[[User talk:Ғїяеѕкатея|talk]]</sup></b> 15:59, 28 July 2008 (UTC) |
||
** 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. [[User:Jfdwolff|JFW]] | [[User_talk:Jfdwolff|<small>T@lk</small>]] 06:22, 29 July 2008 (UTC) |
** 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. [[User:Jfdwolff|JFW]] | [[User_talk:Jfdwolff|<small>T@lk</small>]] 06:22, 29 July 2008 (UTC) |
||
*'''Keep''' I wrote the writeup based on newscoverage I saw, not the other way around. --''[[User:Reflex Reaction|<font color = "#D2691E"><b>Reflex Reaction</b></font>]]'' ([[User talk:Reflex Reaction|<font color = "#A0522D">talk</font>]])• 16:27, 29 July 2008 (UTC) |
|||
Revision as of 16:27, 29 July 2008
- 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)
Delete - fails WP:N and WP:WEB.--SRX 13:54, 28 July 2008 (UTC)- 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 Ғїяеѕкатеяtalk 15:59, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
- 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)
- Keep I wrote the writeup based on newscoverage I saw, not the other way around. --Reflex Reaction (talk)• 16:27, 29 July 2008 (UTC)