Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ALCAT test

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. (non-admin closure) — ΛΧΣ21™ 00:19, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

ALCAT test[edit]

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

Primarily, this article qualifies for deletion because it fails WP:Notability with the given references on the page. Wikipedia requires "significant coverage". Instead, the references on the page only provide passing coverage and fail to "address the subject directly in detail". There are other sources that could be used to establish notability, such as [1], [2], [3], and [4], but they have been rejected by some other editors and even this is passing coverage. The page also appears to have been originally created by a single-issue corporate account on behalf of ALCAT: See User talk:Inflammation.

Additionally, this article clearly has devolved into a POV WP:Attack page and WP:Coatrack that is not worthy of Wikipedia. Plot Spoiler (talk) 23:47, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The WP:Attack page claim is frankly preposterous: all reliable medical secondary sources concur in the negative judgements summarized in the current version [5]. Editors from WP:MED, including User:LeadSongDog [6], have long fought abuse of this Wikipedia page as a vehicle to promote this notable quackery [7]. Adding: It's worth noting that this is not the first time [8] that this page has been put up for deletion by an editor who seems intent on obscuring here what the reliable medical sources have to say about the product. —MistyMorn (talk) 00:51, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article is on a notable subject, and the references from reliable sources support that. The content also reflects prevailing consensus on the topic; therefore, it is not an attack page. -- Scray (talk) 01:03, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There are numerous medical reliable sources per WP:MEDRS covering this test. [9][10][11][12][13][14][15][16][17]. It has extensive coverage in popular health books Google books result and there is sufficient popular press coverage to establish notability. I see no evidence of WP:COATRACK here. The article reflects what reliable sources say about the subject. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 01:25, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It seems contradictory that certain editors are claiming there is sufficient popular press coverage to establish notability, but have systematically deleted all popular press coverage from the page e.g. [18], [19], [20], etc., etc. If you can't use the sources that potentially establish notability, notability does not appear to be established with the given references on the page, which only deal with subject in passing and not "directly in detail" as required by WP:Notability. Plot Spoiler (talk) 01:39, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It seems that here, people are only discussing reliable medical sources. Biosthmors (talk) 02:23, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You don't need to include popular press reports in an article to establish notability, ~~they just have to exist~~. It is utterly inappropriate to include celebrity endorsements in an article about a medical test. For efficacy claims, we rely on WP:MEDRS-compliant sources - of which there are many. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 02:43, 5 November 2012 (UTC) Struck per LSD's comment. 05:53, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Since when does there have to be anything in the popular press to establish notability? We have more than sufficient wp:MEDRS sourcing discussing this test, we don't need to resort to pop press to establish wp:N. LeadSongDog come howl! 04:15, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

True. Struck. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 05:53, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:50, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:50, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. While Gerez et al. only devote a paragraph to the topic, I find their coverage to be non-trivial. Selected quotes from the paper say that it has been "used in some countries for ... diagnosis" and "several investigators have reported." There is clearly coverage and interest in the topic from secondary medical literature. Biosthmors (talk) 02:21, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I see direct coverage in journals which seem reputable. The test is being attacked but the sources attacking it seem reliable for what they are. Blue Rasberry (talk) 15:51, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Let's not beat about the bush here. The article has previously contained a lot of content that was promotional and contradicted the mainstream opinion that the test has no validity. Once that was rectified and MEDRS-compliant sources added, the only promotional material left was that which drew attention to a couple of baseball players who tried the test. Now that has gone, the remaining stub does not contain much. It is clear that the ALCAT test is notable, both from the the number of MEDRS-compliant sources that establish its lack of validity, and from the number of sources that anecdotally make reference to minor celebrities who have used the test. All of this is clearly documented on the article talk page. --RexxS (talk) 22:18, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Agree topic notable. It is important to have this neutral POV here when people search for this on the internet.lesion (talk) 23:54, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per above. —MistyMorn (talk) 11:18, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The important information is that this test is not reliable, is not useful and is not a tool that can be used; while at the same time being promoted anyway. Wikipedia is a resource for the world, and even though the ALCAT promoters are not happy with the facts, it should remain available. This article has supporting material, is notable, and is not an attack article. keep. | pulmonological ^{talk • contribs} 12:59, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep - The consensus here so far is universal Keep, the sources all seem reputable and as far as I can tell this stub of an article has been under a nearly constant edit war for 3 years. Leaving the AfD notice up there seems like a too-public volley in a war that should be fought on the talk page. --0x0077BE (talk) 20:57, 7 November 2012 (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.