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. \ Backslash Forwardslash / (talk) 01:37, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ganfyd[edit]

Ganfyd (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I couldn't find any reliable sources to support this article. Also, being a website, it doesn't meet the recommendations at WP:WEB. Axl ¤ [Talk] 21:41, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• There are three references, an international meeting and a national journal among them, in the article. There is a long article in Nature Medicine, which is a distinctly reliable source. Brandon Keim Nature Medicine 13, 231-233 (28 February 2007) doi:10.1038/nm0307-231 News ( http://www.nature.com/nm/journal/v13/n3/full/nm0307-231.html for the start of it, and access to full text. Easier to go to your library though.) There is a discussion of the methods of ensuring reliability on medical reference wikis at http://davidrothman.net/2007/03/02/nature-medicine-on-wikis/ which pops up in the same rather simple search, along with a lot of other hits. While Ganfyd aims to be useful of itself, the key notable element of it is the licence and approach to reliability that is embodied in it. You'll notice that I'm a key mover in the project, I wouldn't wish to write a great deal in the article, but I'd suggest that keeping it and improving it is probably better than removing it and hoping someone will rewrite it better. I've looked at [WP:WEB] and the guidelines there do not appear to me to rule out ganfyd. There are many items in WP about things of less notability than a collaborative textboook and unique copyleft licence, and WP is not limited in space by being on paper. Midgley (talk) 05:07, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: DavidRothman self-pub blog is not a WP:RS. Also, his analytical methods consist of adding the word poop to article. This, I can not trust. "There are three references, an international meeting and a national journal among them, in the article. There is a long article in Nature Medicine, which is a distinctly reliable source. Brandon Keim" Does this imply that Brandon Keim wrote this? Are you Brandon Keim? The abstract of the WikiMedia indicates trivial coverage. Any chance of fair use excerpt? --Odie5533 (talk) 05:45, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• • • I am not Brandon Keim, Brandon Keim, at the time an editorial writer in the Nature group of journals is Brandon Keim. (Nature is the foremost scientific journal dealing with such things as the discovery of th structure of DNA and one hopes the grand unified theory of everything, It has a number of offshoot journals that deal with less groundbreaking things of more day to day use, such as how to do medicine. The reference - the title of a piece in an academic journal, with the volume number, page number and author name - given above does not imply that B Keim wrote the piece, it states that he did. Nature will let you read it for a few pounds/dollars or your local university or goood public library will have a copy, or your educational establishment, hospital library or wherever your academic link is will get you a photocopy of it, probably free. Mentioning fair use suggests you are American, I'm English, we don't have that concept in our law. However, nice though it will evnetually be when everything anyone publishes in a journal is freely available via the Web, we have not yet entirely subverted the basis of academic publishing since the reformation, and WP sources are not confined to those which people can read without rising from their chair. Please distinguish between "I can't find anything" and "I'd have to actually go and find what I've been given the reference of". The latter is the start of research. Midgley (talk) 22:02, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep do by all means improve it. Midgley (talk) 05:07, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: All that I can find for significant coverage is this. Joe Chill (talk) 22:07, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- Joe Chill (talk) 22:07, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. -- Joe Chill (talk) 22:08, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I don't know, here are some links: [1] [2][3]--Nutriveg (talk) 22:16, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The first link needs a subscription from the journal, the second link is a trivial mention, and the third link is a copy of a wiki. Joe Chill (talk) 22:17, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Nothing wrong with links that require subscriptions. WP is not an encyclopedia of the Web, it is of all knowledge. Midgley (talk) 05:07, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Dozens of articles discussing it in academic journals available on gScholar. --Odie5533 (talk) 23:45, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep even if it's hard to verify right now, its site traffic is high enough [4] that I'm sure it will be referenced eventually. Meanwhile, it's reasonably well-written and visited several times daily. - Draeco (talk) 23:50, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Notability isn't determined by numbers, Notability isn't determined by Pageview stats. Algébrico (talk) 01:15, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete The article is not based on independent reliable secondary sources. Algébrico (talk) 01:15, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• This isn't FAC, of course the article has problems. The question is, is the subject of the article notable? --Odie5533 (talk) 02:37, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment The question is: What have the sources written about the subject? "Lots of sources" does not stabilish Notability, specially if the mentions are trivial (which seems to be the case). It does not stabilish the consensus of independent reliable secondary sources about the the information which I believe is even more important than notability itself because the article would be consistent (See WP:FRANKIE#Intersections. Algébrico (talk) 03:57, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• • The Nature Medicine article is non-trivial. Midgley (talk) 05:15, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• [Disclaimer: I have not read the Nature Medicine article.] The Nature Medicine article itself is not trivial. However its coverage about "Ganfyd" might be trivial. I would appreciate more viewpoints from anyone who has read the article. Axl ¤ [Talk] 17:58, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• what is this "might"? I suggest you read it. The coverage was considerable and non-trivial. Midgley (talk) 11:01, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete – I worked on this article last Janurary, and therefore was notified of this AfD. The article is fully unsourced and makes no claim of notability. American Eagle (talk) 03:21, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Significant enough. Like we have pages on sports and movie stars and non of them have hits on pubmed or google scholar. :-) Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 05:11, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete without prejudice to re-creation. My reading of the article suggests it is a little niche thing for doctors that isn't well known, even among doctors. A search of the internet confirmed that feeling, and a quick look at the site itself made me think it is not going places very quickly. I didn't get any hits with Ganfyd on PubMed. Ganfyd is not notable currently -- but I think this could be revisited at a later time. Nephron  T|C 17:20, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Should you expect hits in Pubmed on it though? The area of academic publication that it should appear in is medical librarianship rather than medical research. Midgley (talk) 22:02, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Why not? If you search UpToDate you get hits on PubMed. If you search Wikipedia on PubMed you get 42 hits. Nephron  T|C 04:29, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Ganfyd doesn't meet the criteria for PubMed searches. It does however appear in TRIP Database searches. DOI: A ganfyd contributor. --Amdsweb (talk) 09:29, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - I think it should be noted that Midgley may be conflicted, as he/she is part of Ganfyd.[5] Preceding stated, I realize that Wikipedians may not be completely objective about this... as one could (perhaps) consider Ganfyd a competitor of sorts, even though the target audiences of Ganfyd and Wikipedia are much different. Nephron  T|C 04:39, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree it should be noted, it should also be noted that I noted it above, the day before Nephron did. I think there is an overlap in authhorship and readership of WP and Ganfyd. Midgley (talk) 10:59, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Although the article could be improved. The term GANFYD is used in the English speaking world. Obviously to be consistent those for deletion will go around deleting all articles that mention a medical wiki with higher editorial control standards than Wikipedia or less than Ganfyd. A obvious list includes the articles on Medpedia, Ask Dr Wiki - oh I have just noted that a reference there also reference GANFYD !, WikiDoc. Conflict of interest I have contributed articles or parts of articles to several of the above and rarely wikipedia. ChaseKiwi (talk) 20:26, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - Seems there are a lot of Ganfyd-ies here. I wonder if their efforts would be better directed at pushing forward sighting, as implemented on the German language edition of Wikipedia. To this end, they could join the WikiProject Flagged Revisions. Nephron  T|C 00:03, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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.