Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Unique Device Identification

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. John254 00:14, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unique Device Identification

Is this really important/notable? No sources, maybe merge into FDA article? _David ^WS _(contribs) 19:59, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ (see below). ~~Possibly speedy under WP:CSD#A1.~~ What country's law is this about? What sort of device is it about? I haven't got a clue from reading the article. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:37, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I would bet that the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) mentioned is the American one. Although I suppose most countries should have a similar government body, I don't know of any that use the same name and abbreviation. --Itub (talk) 13:18, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note--the author is following this: sources have been provided to establish that this is indeed the FDA in the US, and that the concept exists. I would dare to guess, from looking at a couple of those FDA links, that this is notable, though you could never tell from the article, which is barely English. A quick Google search reveals no newspaper coverage, though there is lots of coverage from inside the medical and nutritional profession. I think this might be a keeper--though every single clause in the article needs to be rewritten to conform to the rules of English grammar. Drmies (talk) 05:41, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
~~Perhaps we should userfy this... - Mgm|^(talk) 09:14, 2 December 2008 (UTC)~~[reply]
I agree. I think the author is on to something; let's keep it so some more work can be done. Drmies (talk) 15:37, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Surprisingly, this is actually pretty interesting. Or so it seems. :) The FDA is insisting that medical devices (noting that devices covers virtually everything that isn't pharmaceutical - bandages, beds, etc) have a unique ID, which is consistent in spite of product names or model numbers. It will standardize ordering, make recalls more effective, and improve tracking of adverse effects. There are a few good sources which should be enough to clean it up a bit, if I or another editor can grab the time. - Bilby (talk) 16:03, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've added a bit to the article, including some refs which should establish notability. I can't do much at the moment, but I'll try to come back to it later if it survives AfD with the changes. - Bilby (talk) 17:56, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bilby, you have done excellent work. Bravo. Drmies (talk) 00:23, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Changing opinion to keep. At last we have some context, i.e. that this is about medical devices in the United States. The references indicate that this is a notable subject. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:34, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Current sourcing appears adequate to define context and notability. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 20:36, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Refs indicate notability and article has changed sufficiently to be kept. Mgm|^(talk) 00:54, 3 December 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.