Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Medical peer review


 * 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   no consensus. T. Canens (talk) 04:18, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Medical peer review

 * – ( View AfD View log )

In his speedy delete recommendation, wrote, "this article is not evidence-based;the term Medical peer review is ambiguous and is confounded by Clinical peer review for which an article meeting Wikipedia standards now exists". I have removed the speedy deletion tag and initiated an AfD discussion to give the community the opportunity to evaluate this article, which has existed since August 2006. Cunard (talk) 03:02, 23 January 2011 (UTC)  Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 03:11, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:28, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete, or Redirect to Clinical peer review, which covers the exact same material, only better. --MelanieN (talk) 17:10, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Logan Talk Contributions 00:35, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Comment Medical peer review (Mpr) contains content critical of the process; citations for this can be found on Sham peer review. It contains a link to Specialty medical peer review, deleted without AfD 22:14, 1 September 2008 by User:Maxim. Mpr contains a link to Utilization review, deleted 22:12, 1 September 2008 by Maxim, without AfD or talk page discussion, while a merge tag existed on both Utilization review and Utilization management, another linked article on Mpr. Mpr contains links to Sham peer review and Subpoena duces tecum. Clinical peer review, while it contains additional content on the process, has no mention of peer review difficulties and no internal links at all, and was called Physician peer review until Tom Bergen moved it. The move summary specifically indicates Bergen's plan to delete Mpr by making Physician peer review a similar name, thereby forcing a redundancy. There has been some skirting of the rules here already; I would be very leery of any outcome that did not address the additional content on Mpr. Anarchangel (talk) 02:58, 12 February 2011 (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.