Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Unofficial Guides to Medicine


 * 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. postdlf (talk) 03:17, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

The Unofficial Guides to Medicine

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Well sourced, this reads as an essay and an advocation rather then an encyclopedia article. Casically a part of What wiki is not and will take a fundamental rewrite and a scrutiny of sources. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 22:11, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Mr. Guye (talk) 22:15, 17 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete: WP:ADMASQ. Pax 23:11, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete: WP:ADMASQ. Eiron (talk) 00:47, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete. Advertisement masquerading as an article. BakerStMD T&#124;C 14:19, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:31, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:31, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:31, 18 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete: Per WP:ARTSPAM. How considerate of the article, it even gives us two links in the references section to the amazon pages from where we can buy the book from. Mbcap (talk) 18:17, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete with no prejudice against recreation as a proper article - there is some possibility of notability (several of the books have been reviewed in academic journals), but there isn't really much usable text here - it is mostly an essay on why someone should read (or buy) the books. Better to start over I think. --ThaddeusB (talk) 18:46, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Pinging who accepted this at AfC in case he wants to clean it up & save it. --ThaddeusB (talk) 18:47, 20 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Incubate again Yikes. This is bad. I suppose I did not look through it as much as I should have. Perhaps I was thrown off by something. Still, as has said, it may be notable. Let's send it back to draftspace so it can be fixed up, especially by, who has yet to comment here. Mr. Guye (talk) 23:14, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I certainly have no objection to returning it to draft space if there is a willingness to work on it (which per below, does seem to be the case). --ThaddeusB (talk) 04:21, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Thank you all for the helpful feedback, and take all of the comments very seriously. I appreciate your patience, and as it sounds like you have deduced, my background is academic writing (as a doctor), rather than encyclopedia entry, and its seems as though i have fallen into the trap of doing things in a way i am used to. I have already added significantly to the article based on feedback. I have tried to make it more balanced, and have included more criticism about the publishing group. I have set aside time every day this week to work on it further however necessary, as i believe that wikipedia's strength comes from its strict standards. Cant emphasise again how great it is to have so much feedback to take on, and look forward to further comments.
 * And thank you for being civil and assuming good faith. --Mr. Guye (talk) 00:59, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Wow, I have seldom seen a statement like that at an AFD. Kudos. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 18:03, 22 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete - pretty much piling on. This article is a pretty blatant advertisement. I must concur with those above this article should be deleted per WP:ADMASQ. --ceradon ( talk  •  contribs ) 01:02, 24 February 2015 (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.