Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/DVS: Dose verification system
- 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 keep, owing to no hint of consensus, but an editorial merge may be helpful. Gwen Gale (talk) 22:56, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- DVS: Dose verification system (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)
The article, as written, reads like an advertisement for the product; I consider it unlikely to be salvageable. The subject of the article is a niche market tool for clinical radiation dosimetry. (Note that the article describes in detail how to obtain insurance reimbursement for the product, but offers scant comment on the device's operatation—even mention of the type of dosimeter employed is omitted.) While our dosimetry article could use expansion, per WP:NOTCATALOG there is no need for Wikipedia to be a catalog of dosimetry products and services.
The article was created by User:Smg2008, whose only contributions to Wikipedia have been the creation of this article and links to it from high traffic articles like breast cancer and prostate cancer (see Special:Contributions/96.234.60.75). This article was originally PRODded on 5 July; the PROD tag was removed today by the logged-out original author, so I'm bringing it here for further discussion. (In case of any ambiguity, I'll note for the closing admin that my not-vote is to delete this not-article.) TenOfAllTrades(talk) 15:37, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment As it stands, it does read as an advert. However, a quick google search shows that it might be notable - it has been cleared for treatment. It's a shame that there are no notability guidelines for drugs and treatments (well, none that I can see). I would say though that any that are cleared for use on human patients, or trialled drugs/treatments that have received multiple secondary coverage should be notable. With a rewrite, it might make for a good article. StephenBuxton (talk) 16:19, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Additional comment Found this talking about DVS, but it isn't clear if it is the same product. StephenBuxton (talk) 16:23, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I would comment that while the class of devices – implantable dosimeters – may warrant an article in the future, there just isn't enough to say about any particular one to justify a separate article on each. While we have articles on forceps and projectional radiography, we don't have articles on specific makes and models of tweezers or of x-ray machines—nor, per WP:NOTCATALOG, should we. With drugs, we maintain one article for each unique compound; we don't have an article for every generic copy. If someone were interested enough in the topic to write a short, general blurb in dosimetry, that would be superb. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 17:50, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Sounds sensible. I !vote that the article is merged with dosimetry. StephenBuxton (talk) 06:57, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Could you be specific about what material there is in this article that might be worth merging? TenOfAllTrades(talk) 18:41, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I will rework given the above comments and will post changes tomorrow. I disagree with DVS being featured on the dosimetry page of wikipedia as that description is dealing with external radiation measuring. Smg2008 —Preceding comment was added at 19:43, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Could you be specific about what material there is in this article that might be worth merging? TenOfAllTrades(talk) 18:41, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Sounds sensible. I !vote that the article is merged with dosimetry. StephenBuxton (talk) 06:57, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I would comment that while the class of devices – implantable dosimeters – may warrant an article in the future, there just isn't enough to say about any particular one to justify a separate article on each. While we have articles on forceps and projectional radiography, we don't have articles on specific makes and models of tweezers or of x-ray machines—nor, per WP:NOTCATALOG, should we. With drugs, we maintain one article for each unique compound; we don't have an article for every generic copy. If someone were interested enough in the topic to write a short, general blurb in dosimetry, that would be superb. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 17:50, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 13:45, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- comment (to TenOafAllTrades) Most of what is in the article describing how it works is suitable, provided the info is sourced so it doesn't read as OR. Also, the information about being approved should be in there, as that helps prove its notability. However, the general information about cancer is just extra background information which is covered better in the main cancer articles. StephenBuxton (talk) 14:38, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge generic content with dosimetry, otherwise delete. JFW | T@lk 14:53, 11 June 2008 (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.