Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Imedix


 * 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   keep. (non-admin closure) Derild  49  21  ☼  00:02, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Imedix

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

No indication of notability fails WP:ORG and WP:WEB, I also note that this has been around since 2008 so certainly needs to be discussed before any deletion. Wintonian (talk) 18:47, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep: It was mentioned in Techcrunch and I believe it is famous enough to be kept. This is considered a major health-related website nowadays. NCurse work 16:49, 7 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep, also covered in the NYTimes, I added the reference. This one can be saved, I think, so adding a rescue template. --Nuujinn (talk) 10:19, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment, looks like this one slipped through the cracks, I've added an AFD notice to the imedix page, now off to find someone to double check my work. --Nuujinn (talk) 10:28, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep. The only reason this site's article is so short is probably because it is by itself a popular health-wiki site. Most editors of it probably prefer editing on their own wiki and don't care about ours so much (WP:systemic bias). As for those who keep nominating such articles for deletion, please check the company's website for a "in the news" or "product reviews" page beforehand... just one look at iMedix's in the news page brings up a huge number of major sources that demonstrate notability. — Code Hydro  18:40, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment Not so much, some of those are dead, some blogs, some press releases--only a few are really reliable sources. --Nuujinn (talk) 19:45, 15 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep I added a scholarly journal reference (Trivedi, Mayank (October 2009) "A study of search engines for health sciences" (PDF) International Journal of Library and Information Science pp. October, 2009 Vol. 1 (5): 69-73) &mdash; HowardBGolden (talk) 19:39, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: The article under discussion here has been flagged for rescue by the Article Rescue Squadron.    Snotty Wong   prattle 23:18, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
 * yes, it has, I mentioned that I flagged it when I flagged it. --Nuujinn (talk) 23:38, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
 * This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 12:56, 21 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep Looking through the pages of Google news results, I see the New York Times standing out . There are others of course.  Keep, and please click the Google news search before you nominate something.   D r e a m Focus  14:30, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:06, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:06, 23 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.