Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rothwell banding system

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 in one form or another. There is no consensus whether to keep this article in its current form, under another name (and if so, which one) or whether to merge it somewhere but there is clear consensus that the content should not be deleted. Moving or merging can be discussed at the talk page. Regards So Why 07:36, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Rothwell banding system

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

Prod removed without adding refs or claim of notability. This seems to be a very obscure technical spec who which there is little or no coverage in RS. Does not meet GNG. MB 17:15, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if you had waited five minutes before a knee jerk nomination, or spoke to me first, you would see that I was in the process of adding references. And if you had checked the history first, you would have found that this reference was inappropriately deleted, I suspect because the convenience link had gone dead, although the edit summary says that refs were deleted because they do not mention Rothwell. In fact, the document refers to the Rothwell scale throughout. SpinningSpark 17:33, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There is an ISO standard on the scale. There are a number of scholarly papers that discuss it: this paper, this paper and this paper investigate the usefulness of the method. And as I said in the post above, the Health Technology Assessment document uses the Rothwell scale throughout in a comparative evaluation. SpinningSpark 17:46, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. If kept, the title should be moved to Rothwell scale (or to Rothwell method or Rothwell system). The current title does not seem to occur in the literature. SpinningSpark 18:19, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm not sure it fits the style guidelines, but if this is defined in ISO 11948, ISO 11948 (or a variant) makes the most sense to me for the page name. Power~enwiki (talk) 23:14, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:19, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:19, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:10, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to Incontinence pad if this Rothwell system is specific to that product, and it seems to be. Something here worth saving but probably not in a standalone article. --Lockley (talk) 20:29, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disability-related deletion discussions.

Comment There are actually two possible merge targets, Incontinence pad and Adult diaper, though merging them is also a possibility. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 21:44, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Exemplo347 (talk) 07:36, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Move to ISO 11948-1. Some references are already present, more appear to be extant. This is a niche technical specification, but there's no Wikipedia policy preventing articles on such topics where adequate sourcing is available. Alternative article names are problematic, because sources don't seem to clearly agree what sort of "Rothwell thing" (e.g. method, scale, system...) this is actually called. Titling it based on the standard number is neutral and uncontroversial; for the rest, redirects are cheap. I oppose a redirect to the products (such as incontinence pad), in part because this represents a very different level of technical depth than the broad-concept product articles. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 15:30, 6 June 2017 (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.