Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/HealthFrame


 * 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 Delete per CSD G7. Nacon kantari 04:55, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

HealthFrame
Delete - Spam. Pretty obvious given the editor's username. Wickethewok 03:18, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

It should only be deleted if you also delete WebMD. Please go to the Wikipedia's entry for Personal Health Record. WebMD is entered in the Examples section. If you follow the link for WebMD there is NO deletion request. WebMD's personal health record is a commercial product, for which users must pay an yearly fee. The fact that the editor does not choose to hide her identity behind an alias should not be the reason for deletion. There was nothing to hide given the obvious precedent for WebMD's commercial product. simone@RecordsForLiving.com 25 May 2006
 * Comment If I do a google search for WebMD.com, I get 3 million hits. If I do a google search for RecordsForLiving.com, I get 300. WebMD is notable. RecordsForLiving is not. Fan1967 04:06, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Exactly. Devotchka 04:07, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

WebMD may be notable, but WebMD's personal health record isn't. Do a search for "WebMD Health Manager" and you will find that this particular product is NOT notable. simone@RecordsForLiving.com 25 May 2006
 * Delete per nom. Nacon kantari  04:01, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom and Fan-1967 Devotchka 04:07, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete obvious spam per nom.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 04:10, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment You make a good argument for removing their name from that page. Interestingly, it was only added there last week, by an anonymous user. Fan1967 04:22, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

One more point, the entry was NOT for Records For Living (the company) the entry was for HealthFrame. simone@RecordsForLiving.com 25 May 2006
 * Comment ...and the first google hits for HealthFrame are Records For Living, so anybody looking for it will find you. Fan1967 04:22, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

I noticed that Securamed still remains in Wikipedia. Are they notable too? simone@RecordsForLiving.com 25 May 2006
 * Comment I have no idea. Many non-notable people and companies remain in Wikipoedia a while because nobody noticed them. Certainly worth looking at. However, whether they are or are not has no effect on whether your company is. Fan1967 04:28, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment - I prod'd Securamed for deletion, as it looks spammy and not particularly notable. Wickethewok 04:30, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment Looks like the Securamed author was also the one who added WebMD to that page. Gues s/he thought it would be too blatant to add Securamed by itself. Fan1967 04:40, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Understood. Can then someone explain the differences in speed to take action? simone@RecordsForLiving.com 25 May 2006
 * Comment There are over a million articles in Wikipedia. There are probably thousands that have never been looked at by anyone at all. As I said, many stick around because nobody noticed them earlier. Fan1967 04:34, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment OK. BTW, the anonymous user seems to have been the same who added SecuraMed... :-)  Please take a look at the IP address.  I have seen them take this strategy before (i.e. to use WebMD as a shield for their own product).  I'll remove my entry.  Sorry to have caused extra work for the editors.  Not my intention.  I was duped by what I perceived was a legitimate entry.  simone@RecordsForLiving.com 25 May 2006
 * Comment I caught that. I have put the Personal health record article back to where it was a week ago, without any of the links. Fan1967 04:48, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment I tried to delete, but I think a 'bot' undid it... If any of you know how to do it, just remove it.  Thx.  simone@RecordsForLiving.com 25 May 2006


 * 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.