Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/FreeMedForms


 * 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   delete. T. Canens (talk) 03:21, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

FreeMedForms

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

I placed a prod tag on this article due to lack of independent sources. The prod tag was removed and no independent sources were added, so here we are. The current sourcing consists of some wiki pages and a mailing list post, and a paper in Farmacia Hospitalaria - but the paper does not actually mention FreeMedForms at all - it is about a freely available data set that FreeMedForms makes use of. I've had a look and haven't found any better sources. Given the absence of reliable sourcing, this article does not satisfy the General notability guideline. MrOllie (talk) 16:23, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:04, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
 * FreeMedForms is a young project as you can see. It has been started in 2008. There are no commercial support for this project. FreeDiams which is part this project starts to bring light on the project because of its uniqueness. There are no other open source, community based project that correspond to the FreeDiams app: pharmaceutical drug prescriber / drug-drug interaction checker. All contributors of the FreeMedForms project does not declare any conflict of interest. FreeMedForms is only build by volonteers (mainly medical doctors) without any kind of compensation. For now, I can not add more consistent and reliable sources than those already added. May be just insist on the fact that GNUmed and fr:MedinTux can be freely connected to FreeDiams. Thanks for your help.--Eric Maeker, MD (talk) 17:58, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete, I see no significant coverage in reliable sources, nom is correct. --Nuujinn (talk) 22:16, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.


 * Update, added one link.--Eric Maeker, MD (talk) 09:14, 19 September 2010 (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.