Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Plasmolifting

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. Sandstein 18:07, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Plasmolifting

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

This article is essentially an ad for one company's branded version of autologous blood injection. Since we already have an article on the generic topic, the only reason for the existence of this article is to promote the particular developers' claims. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 16:48, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:32, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:32, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

delete and salt promotional brochure. gah. Jytdog (talk) 07:17, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, GeoffreyT2000 (talk, contribs) 17:50, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Since the product is primarily marketed outside the Anglo-Saxon world, we dont have that many English language sources. This should mean that we ought to avoid letting a bias in favor of Englishness cloud our judgement on whether this is notable. 92.2.76.202 (talk) 21:17, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

note to closer: per its contribs IP appears to have arrived simply to oppose my !votes; this is a weak rationale as is the other. I appear to have a "fan" in Manchester. Jytdog (talk) 21:31, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@92.2.76.202: The availability of sources is not the problem. The product is one brand of a generic process for which Wikipedia already has an article. Since there is no mention of the product at the existing generic process article, there is no point in a redirect, so the proper solution to the problem of WP:SPAM is deletion. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 22:09, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into autologous blood injection, to the extent that the suggested (sourced) application for photodermatosis treatment might get a mention there. Otherwise superfluous and promotional.-- Elmidae (talk · contribs) 13:23, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and salt per nominator. Citobun (talk) 13:39, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not even sources worth a redirect. Not sure about salting though. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 15:32, 18 October 2016 (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.