Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Flow-through test: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
→Flow-through test: great improvement |
→Flow-through test: Keep |
||
| Line 11: | Line 11: | ||
*'''Keep''': AfD is explicitly for deleting articles that cannot be improved through editing. This is a common enough point of care assay, with a well described history, and which is easy to find discussed by independent sources. I've gone ahead and deleted the medmira references, included new sources, and rewritten most of the article; as it is now there should be no more objections to keeping it. [[User:M. A. Bruhn|M. A. Bruhn]] ([[User talk:M. A. Bruhn|talk]]) 00:19, 4 July 2016 (UTC) |
*'''Keep''': AfD is explicitly for deleting articles that cannot be improved through editing. This is a common enough point of care assay, with a well described history, and which is easy to find discussed by independent sources. I've gone ahead and deleted the medmira references, included new sources, and rewritten most of the article; as it is now there should be no more objections to keeping it. [[User:M. A. Bruhn|M. A. Bruhn]] ([[User talk:M. A. Bruhn|talk]]) 00:19, 4 July 2016 (UTC) |
||
**'''Comment:''' That is great work, it looks a lot better now. - [[User:Ahunt|Ahunt]] ([[User talk:Ahunt|talk]]) 01:58, 4 July 2016 (UTC) |
**'''Comment:''' That is great work, it looks a lot better now. - [[User:Ahunt|Ahunt]] ([[User talk:Ahunt|talk]]) 01:58, 4 July 2016 (UTC) |
||
*'''Keep''' : chapeau to M.A. Bruhn for addressing the concerns of the nomination by editing the article. [[User:DeVerm|DeVerm]] ([[User talk:DeVerm|talk]]) 05:56, 4 July 2016 (UTC) |
|||
Revision as of 05:56, 4 July 2016
- Flow-through test (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Article is pure commercial spam that just promotes the medical services and products of one company. All refs cited are to the company and any potentially useful text is not referenced. The article has been justifiably tagged as having been the product of WP:COI. Ahunt (talk) 11:58, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
- delete per nominators rationale--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 12:40, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
- Delete needs independent sources not those of the products manufacturers website. If appropriate sources are found no concern with recreation. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:40, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
- Delete per nom, with the same addendum as Doc James. --RexxS (talk) 17:14, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
- Delete an obvious piece of COI work, but (as is said above), if independent and significant sources are found later for what appears to be pin-prick blood testing, then OK with recreation.HappyValleyEditor (talk) 20:01, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
- Keep: AfD is explicitly for deleting articles that cannot be improved through editing. This is a common enough point of care assay, with a well described history, and which is easy to find discussed by independent sources. I've gone ahead and deleted the medmira references, included new sources, and rewritten most of the article; as it is now there should be no more objections to keeping it. M. A. Bruhn (talk) 00:19, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
- Comment: That is great work, it looks a lot better now. - Ahunt (talk) 01:58, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
- Keep : chapeau to M.A. Bruhn for addressing the concerns of the nomination by editing the article. DeVerm (talk) 05:56, 4 July 2016 (UTC)