Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Microsoft HealthVault


 * 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The result was withdrawn by nominator. Addhoc (talk) 17:07, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Microsoft HealthVault

 * – (View AfD)

Lack of significant independent coverage in reliable sources. Addhoc (talk) 17:09, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Rewrite: The sources look acceptable, but the thing is written like an ad.  It is also, more importantly, not written like an article.  An article would have something about it, not just a list of services.  It might suggest, for example, that there is widespread opposition to such off-site services, or that the business community has seen this as a profit center, etc.  Utgard Loki (talk) 17:18, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment - agree that if kept, it should be rewritten. Regarding the sources, the 'Dr. Microsoft is now ready to see you' appears to be a blog, and those following link to the HealthVault site. I've looked through google news archive without much success. Addhoc (talk) 17:26, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions.   —Espresso Addict (talk) 22:09, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep - Article is not written like an ad, however it can definitely be expanded, and article seems to be notable. -- Chetblong T  C 01:35, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep Significant product, and Google shows should be multiple sources for expansion. DGG (talk) 04:27, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Strong keep - Needs some work, but significant product with citable coverage. -- Zim Zala Bim talk  16:43, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Strong keep - Needs some work, but significant product with citable coverage. -- Zim Zala Bim talk  16:43, 6 February 2008 (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.