Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/EyeWiki


 * 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 restore redirect‎__EXPECTED_UNCONNECTED_PAGE__. There seems to be a consensus here that sourcing presented doesn't meet notability criteria. (non-admin closure) NotAGenious (talk) 17:56, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

EyeWiki

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

Back in 2015, an article on EyeWiki was merged to List of medical wikis for lack of notability. Recently the redirect has been overwritten with a new article, but this new article does not show that EyeWiki passes either WP:GNG or WP:NWEB. The article currently cites 5 sources - 1, 4, and 5 are all to EyeWiki itself. Cite 3 is to one of EyeWiki's parent organizations. Cite 2 was written by EyeWiki's deputy editor in chief. I have done some searches and only turned up trivial mentions aside from these. Note that these searches are fairly difficult because many hits will be citations to copies of documents hosted on EyeWiki. Since there is no established notability here, I think this should probably be turned back into a redirect. I'm starting this AFD rather than boldly redirecting based on a rocky user talk page discussion I had with the new article's author that leads me to expect that would meet with opposition - so community consensus should be sought here. MrOllie (talk) 18:23, 29 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Medicine and Websites.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 19:01, 29 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep: Enough sourcing in peer-reviewed journals, , and many others. We're ok for notability.  Oaktree b (talk) 19:04, 29 October 2023 (UTC)
 * One of those is the one written by EyeWiki's deputy editor in chief mentioned above, and the other two are the trivial mentions I alluded to - they include EyeWiki in some rankings but contain no substantial information about the site. If there are 'many others' I could not find them. MrOllie (talk) 19:11, 29 October 2023 (UTC)
 * The second two do discuss how EyeWiki is used by health professionals to treat/diagnose conditions; ok they aren't extensive, but they show how the site is notable. Oaktree b (talk) 22:30, 29 October 2023 (UTC)
 * This falls into the second category as well . Oaktree b (talk) 22:34, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 21:15, 5 November 2023 (UTC)
 * del fails GNG. - Altenmann >talk 21:04, 29 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I find myself in the same boat as MrOllie. There are no independent sources.  Whilst Virtual Mentor (as was) is peer-reviewed, the byline of that article outright tells us that the author was (at the time) EyeWiki's deputy editor in chief.  I've looked for others and &mdash; likewise &mdash; I too cannot find things independently documenting EyeWiki, only places where people cite articles on EyeWiki.  The articles pointed at by Oaktree b have general conclusions and don't say much about any of the individual WWW sites, and if we were applying Project:Identifying reliable sources (medicine) we'd have to (ironically) point out that both were single case reports using one single article from each WWW site: low on the reliability scale.  The irony is that EyeWiki probably qualifies as a source worth considering, with identifiable authors with identifiable credentials writing in their fields of expertise, but it doesn't qualify for an article because no-one apart from the people involved have documented the project itself.  I cannot find anything to satisfy the criterion of multiple non-trivial good sources that are independent of the subject, which is older than EyeWiki is. &#9786;  Uncle G (talk) 21:26, 29 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment would this qualify under notability for journals? If you go to the second page of Gscholar results, you see that it's listed in GScholar as several "articles" are peer-reviewed? I mean the wiki articles there are used as scientific papers, indexed by Gscholar. Oaktree b (talk) 22:34, 29 October 2023 (UTC)
 * It's not a journal. Even if it were, attempts to establish a notability guideline for journals have failed to gather consensus. MrOllie (talk) 23:15, 29 October 2023 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 02:40, 13 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions.  WC  Quidditch   ☎   ✎  21:19, 5 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Here's a bit of SIGCOV in a newspaper: &mdash;siro&chi;o 23:18, 5 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I get a blurred image with the title "Preview unavailable" and a hint that this is about some lawyers getting a commercial rating from Thomson Reuters. (There are lots of "X named Super Lawyer" articles about.)  What on Earth has that to do with EyeWiki at all? Uncle G (talk) 09:54, 13 November 2023 (UTC)
 * It's an archive of multiple short articles. I believe you should have access to this article via WP:TWL. Here's the most relevant bits:
 * &mdash;siro&chi;o 01:11, 14 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep as it has strong presence in Google Trends --Maxim Masiutin (talk) 22:55, 12 November 2023 (UTC)
 * What has that got to do with anything? We need sources, not google searches. MrOllie (talk) 23:06, 12 November 2023 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.


 * Restore redirect The "Google Trends" argument is irrelevant, the sourcing just isn't substantial enough to warrant a whole page, and unlike the case of academic journals, there's no selective index for websites along the lines of Scopus. Not everyone would endorse the argument that being included in a selective index means that a publication is significant enough that we ought to cover it, but here, the argument can't even be made in the first place. This is a typical example of a topic best covered in an article with a more broad scope. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 15:21, 13 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Restore redirect for lack of the in-depth independent coverage needed by WP:GNG. We have a problem also typical in academic journals, that the people who write about these things are typically not people independent from the subject and do not publish them in venues independent from the subject. The two most in-depth sources are not independent: "EyeWiki, Do You Wiki?" is in a magazine published by the sponsoring organization, and "The EyeWiki Initiative" is written by someone who is listed as deputy editor-in-chief (also maybe one of the founders) of EyeWiki. That leaves only the AAPOS source, which I don't think is in-depth enough to support an article by itself. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:36, 13 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Restore redirect Insufficient third-party sources to establish this as a notable standalone topic. OhNo itsJamie  Talk 20:51, 13 November 2023 (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.