Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Google Glass breastfeeding app trial (2nd nomination)

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 merge to Google Glass. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:52, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Google Glass breastfeeding app trial

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

The subject of this article, an event from 2014, fails to meet notability criteria for events (Wikipedia:Notability (events)). The event had a bit of news coverage in 2014 and no further coverage, or evidence of impact, since then. The subject is covered with a section in the Google Glass article; a separate article is unnecessary.

If we look at this article as being about a type of health intervention rather than being about a news event, I'm afraid it's even worse. This article promotes the POV that Google Glass is an effective tool for helping women breastfeed, based on a tiny trial (6 patients!), and the results were apparently not published in a peer-reviewed medical journal. Our normal standard for sourcing of health-related claims is that we do not include claims that are based on the results of single clinical trials, even if they are peer reviewed. This article clutters up Category: Breastfeeding with highly commercial, trivial, poor-quality information. Our readers who are interested in breastfeeding deserve much better than this. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 07:24, 26 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This article was previously nominated for deletion under a previous title. See Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Google_Glass_Breastfeeding_app_trial

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 06:45, 26 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:07, 26 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:07, 26 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:07, 26 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 07:30, 26 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Notification placed on Talk:Breastfeeding [1] Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 07:34, 26 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Notification placed on the talk page for Wikiproject Medicine [2] Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 23:34, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. This is basically a spam article. Nick-D (talk) 07:31, 26 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep or, at worst, selectively merge to Google Glass. I'm surprised it had no ongoing impact (e.g. the roll-out of an app) but it certainly had significant news coverage across a variety of (mainly Australian) news outlets over a period of several months. This is 'notability', regardless of the size of the trials or their scientific validity. I can't see any unsubstantiated claims in the article, but things like that can be addressed by clean-up, rather than deletion. The small paragraph in the Google Glass article doesn't really do the subject justice at the moment. Sionk (talk) 14:45, 26 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:58, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Google Glass (first choice) or keep. This Wikipedia article is linked in this 2018 news story. The trial is mentioned in this 2016 journal article, this 2015 book chapter, this 2017 journal article, and others. This 2017 article (or maybe "blog post"; I'm not sure) says that the trial was still underway then, but I doubt that's true. Few of these appear to be long explanations (I see more instances of a sentence or two, amounting to little more than "Hey, they tried this" as an example of how virtual reality could be used in health-related contexts), but it is getting some ongoing attention. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:22, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Google glass. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 11:19, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Google Glass. It skates a bit close to implying efficacy based on a five subject trial, but the article has something to say about an innovative use of Google Glass. At 22 kB of editable prose, the Google Glass article has no need of being split off into smaller articles, so it's really difficult to justify having a separate article for any particular application. Even when topics are sufficiently notable, it's not automatic that we maintain a separate article when the topic can be productively handled inside a larger one. --RexxS (talk) 18:24, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
merge per RexxS and Doc James--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 20:19, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge makes sense. There are enough references to justify a paragraph at least. HighKing⁺⁺ 15:21, 7 June 2019 (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.