Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Prostate Rectum Spacers

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. Tawker (talk) 06:23, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Prostate Rectum Spacers

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

This amounts to advertising for a technique that is still under development. Refs 1,2, 3, 4, 11 and 12 do not deal with this product. ref 10 is a press release from the company that makes one of the proposed products Refs 7 & 8 are abstracts, meaning unreviewed preprint. That leaves refs 5, 6, and 9. as possible sources. They are all primary research articles on medical trials of this not yet accepted product. As for style: I note the Capital Letters, and the facts that ttel title is a little misleading--I expected phsyical devices, not injectable fillers.

I'm not sure how we should cover such projects in development, and I've posted at the Medicine Wikiproject. . My own tentative view is that we should cover them only if there is visible interest from more general interest publications. DGG ( talk ) 18:17, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Despite being an ingenious and commendable idea, need independent, secondary sources before it would be notable for a Wiki8pedia article. Per DGG's analysis above the topic currently doesn't seem to have solid refs to warrant a stand alone article. Would be worth a brief literature search on PubMed. Is "Prostate rectum spacer" the most common term by which this is called? Lesion 18:48, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:30, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I'm not seeing sufficient independent sourcing relevant to the topic to back up much of the article's content, particularly the conclusion (which needs WP:MEDRS sources). I would expect that if the subject has merit, it will gain coverage in secondary sources, but even then, I can't see any reason why it would not merely occupy a paragraph in Prostate cancer #Management. --RexxS (talk) 23:12, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Most of the content of this article simply does not match the title of the article, and what is left does not meet Wikipedia's notability criteria. I do not see the ambiguity in this that DGG does. Blue Rasberry (talk) 00:18, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for lack of secondary sources but leave unsalted. Might be developed and be notable at some point....Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:38, 31 March 2014 (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.