Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Health Libraries Wiki of Canada - HLWiki Canada


 * 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. A lot of WP:ATA on the keep side. King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 03:38, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Health Libraries Wiki of Canada - HLWiki Canada

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Non-notable website, no reliable sources cited. A little bit spammy. J Milburn (talk) 10:50, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Spamcruftdvertisement. Delete. — I-20 the highway  19:53, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep: this is the most comprehensive wiki focusing on evidence based medicine and social media. It is managed and written by Dean Giustini who was the first one to publish about the topic in a peer reviewed journal. 84.2.132.123 (talk) 21:31, 11 July 2010 (UTC) — 84.2.132.123 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * Keep This is a specialized wiki which deserves to be included in wikipedia given its importance in the canadian health libraries system. (talk) 22:22, 11 July 2010 (UTC) — ciscogiii (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * We don't actually focus on "importance" so much as notability, verifiability and neutral point of view. Orderinchaos 10:28, 12 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:18, 11 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep - Useful article on seemingly important (albeit specialized) non-commercial wiki site. Worthy of inclusion. Carrite (talk) 05:38, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
 * That said, article needs to be retitled to one name or the other, with the second name being established as a redirect page to the first. This is, of course, a very easy and quick fix. Carrite (talk) 05:42, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
 * On what are you basing your assertion that this is important? I'm not seeing any decent sourced cited. J Milburn (talk) 09:45, 12 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete Is basically a corporate statement of purpose mixed with a press release (it's not strictly speaking advertising, but falls within the same ambit for our purposes) - fails WP:ORG and therefore WP:N, and is almost entirely sourced to primary sources. Orderinchaos 10:28, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete. Fails WP:WEB. Sure the site may be comprehensive and academic and many other sites link to it, but where's the sources that are about the site itself? where's the reviews from popular magazines and newspapers? where's all the awards it's won? -- &oelig; &trade; 19:27, 17 July 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.