Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Google Medicine


 * 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 of the debate was SPEEDY DELETED by other admins. -Splash talk 00:27, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Google Medicine
Google Medicine doesn't exist (yet), and Google hasn't said anything about it. Wikipedia does not speculate on things that may or may not come to be. jackohare 21:58, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
 * If it is your idea then my vote is changed to Userfy --jackohare 22:42, 25 December 2005 (UTC).

AUTHOR: I respectfully disagree. As soon as an idea is published it comes into existence. Google medicine, though still only theoretical, is my idea so you could say this is a kind of vanity publishing, but don't say that is doesn't exist. Wikipedians should be able to perceive and write about emerging ideas as well as document existing ones. Dmfigaro 22:20, 25 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Well... Google Medicine really doesn't exist, though. It doesn't exist any more than the Ford Hovercar exists or the Pfizer HIV vaccine exists; it hasn't been made yet, even though it has been suggested that it may be made at some arbitrary point in the future. --jackohare 08:06, 28 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Delete Unless Google announces its intention of creating a service like this, there shouldn't be an article. The idea was put forth by a third party, and the article reads like a promotional flyer. Kerowyn 22:36, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete you are nonnotable, therefore this article is nonnotable. You also don't work for Google, thus you are engaging in libel. KI 22:56, 25 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Delete. No original research. 24.71.91.173 22:59, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep and cleanup. -- JJay 23:15, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Alright. Hands up. Who wants to make new policy that gives every AfD an automatic keep vote? JJay here seems to be doing exactly that, so why not save him the trouble? Delete this article for being original research. --Apostrophe 05:34, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Did I miss a poll or something? Has policy changed with the new speedies? Is keep no longer a valid option here? Or is keep only allowed for certain articles? Where do I line up for re-education? Please help me to conform. -- JJay 05:43, 26 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Hey, hey. I'm just saving you the trouble of typing. I get no thanks, I tell ya. --Apostrophe 05:58, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete No third party evidence of the existence of "Google Medicine" Endomion 23:25, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete per Endomion's evidence, my own research, and Jackohare's nomination.-- Violin  G  irl ♪ 23:54, 25 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Delete as original research. Arkyan 00:33, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

A shame. Wikipedians would have gained from attention widely from the medical community. I will delete this "non-notable (KI); non original; non-existing" opinion piece myself. You can read it later in the New England Journal of Medicine. My opinion of wikipedia has been altered. 24.82.179.182 02:36, 26 December 2005 (UTC)DMfigaro
 * Journals and encyclopedias have very different aims. While it is acceptable to report research on new and emerging ideas in a journal, an encyclopedia is more a place for general, established ideas. When Google Medicine becomes the next big thing, it will have an article here. --jackohare 03:01, 26 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Delete as original research --Quarl 03:04, 26 December 2005 (UTC)


 * I have just rec'd a message from your administrator. I would respectfully request that my words, my thoughts, my "original ideas" be deleted as soon as possible. I would actually like to do this myself. I hope to hear from you soon. 24.82.179.182 03:06, 26 December 2005 (UTC)dmfigaro@hotmail.com
 * Delete, as per the author. JJay, what part of No Original Research do you not understand?  User:Zoe|(talk) 03:08, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment - Just because JJay has a different opinion does not grant one the license to impugn his intelligence. Endomion 03:32, 26 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Keep, although it should be moved to a different title that makes it clear that it is so far only a proposal by someone unconnected with Google. Kurt Weber 03:27, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
 * At best, that means it would be userfied. User:Zoe|(talk) 03:30, 26 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Weak keep. -- King of Hearts | (talk) 04:53, 26 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Hi fellow Wikipedians (I'm considerably calmer now). I could expand the article as a discussion of "search engines use in medicine" rather than focussing on Google or the notion of something specific like Google Medicine. P.S. My suggestion is to be vigilant about fairness. Some of the comments at the top of this page seem, well, odd and from "left field". 24.82.179.182 05:14, 26 December 2005 (UTC)DMfigaro
 * That would be much welcomed. The new article should be named differently. Pavel Vozenilek 06:02, 26 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Delete. - NeoJustin 05:34, December 27, 2005 (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.