Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/3D-printed stethoscope

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 stethoscope. There's clear consensus here that this should not exist as a stand-alone article. Less clear agreement on which of delete/merge/redirect is the right alternative. Selective merge seems a reasonable average of the various options. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:14, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

3D-printed stethoscope[edit]

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

Unlike some 3D printed objects (such as firearms, for security concerns, or spacecraft) I see little reason for this to be a separate article from stethoscope. Westroopnerd (talk) 22:35, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree, because it's actually a very necessary medical device. The article can be later expanded to cover the Glia project and then renamed. -Mardus (talk) 22:41, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I also created the article, because otherwise I'd have to re-create much of the same text in a number of other articles, such as in the article about David Littmann, stethoscopes, 3D-printing, and open-source hardware. -Mardus (talk) 22:48, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Because the 3D-printed stethoscope is an open-source design, it deserves its own article as any other open source software project; Some open source programs are often even more obscure than this particular stethoscope. The device has gained widespread attention in the press, and I am convinced I can add more references from reputable sources. -Mardus (talk) 23:11, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Article fails WP:GNG and the single citation fails WP:MEDRS. Note to Mardus: if you "re-create much of the same text in a number of other articles" without any evidence of notability, your edits will be deleted as spam. --Guy Macon (talk) 04:12, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I worded it wrong; I meant to write: "I would have had to re-create much of the same content in many places," which is why I created the article in the first place, so that it could be linked to, instead of having to place the same content everywhere.

Notability of the subject matter is reasonably substantial, but I got tired and went to sleep by the time I was finished with much of the article text. I will add additional citations later. -Mardus (talk) 18:17, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Rename The artile is titled "3D printed stethoscope". That is like an article on "fast car". There are plenty of notible fast cars, but the concept of a fast car is not inherently notable. I think the Glia stethoscope, the Gila project, or Free Medical hardware movement might be a better focus for the article. (Also, there are other 3-D printed stethoscopes that are not from Gila) Rayc (talk) 21:27, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Wait - I agree that the current text doesn't make enough of a case for an article, but this device might be a tipping point for something and the topic is still being explored by the media. I'd tend to note this down somewhere to be considered for deletion in a year's time. By then it might have been expanded, or renamed, or it might be no better. Gronky (talk) 22:46, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to stethoscope, in shortened form. Has coverage, but this is just a peculiar way of producing the same item, so there's just not enough content for a dedicated article. Sandstein 21:47, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95 ^Talk 03:32, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:03, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:03, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95 ^Talk 09:20, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete/Weak redirect Stethoscope As analogies, Handmade soap redirects to Soap and Injection-molded basin is red. Unless 3D-printed stethoscopes is used completely differently than normal stethoscopes (and covered by extensive RS) there is no reason for a distinction here. At the very most deserves a one-sentence small mention in the invention's history/development. 野狼院ひさし u/t/c 12:51, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect / Merge over to Stethoscope as there's helpful information in this article, but it seems like it would best belong in some kind of a section over there CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 00:54, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and Redirect to Stethoscope. A 3D printed stethoscope is not inherently notable on its own, but there could be a mention of such a stethoscope in the main article. No need to branch this topic into its own article. Aerospeed (Talk) 14:07, 7 September 2015 (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.