- 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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:27, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Macula Risk (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 previously deleted this article about a medical product as a copyvio, but Ticket:2011051810012889 does make clear that the text, taken from the manufacturer's website, has been properly licenced. I'm submitting it to a regular deletion discussion because nothing in the article, or in a Google search, establishes the notability of the product. The article creator, identified in the OTRS ticket as the "Senior Marketing Manager" of the manufacturer, is currently blocked by me as an advertising-only account. Even if the product is notable, the article should be deleted and rewritten from scratch by somebody who does not have a conflict of interest, since given its provenance we cannot assume that the current text is a neutral description of the product, and because the article concerns a complicated medical topic, most editors can't easily check it for neutrality. Sandstein 18:22, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 19:18, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Original research. No evidence that this has been properly validated, and no WP:MEDRS-compatible sources supporting DNA-based screening for AMDm. JFW | T@lk 19:43, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Promotional; also synthesis/original research. The term Macula Risk is trademarked and proprietary [1]; a search of PubMed for this phrase finds nothing. --MelanieN (talk) 21:02, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as a product brochure. Fails WP:NOT PAPERS. BusterD (talk) 11:49, 29 May 2011 (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.