Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/HPV OncoTect

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. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 23:41, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

HPV OncoTect[edit]

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

Subject notability is unclear but doesn't appear to meet notability guidelines; the article reads as an advertisement; the large majority of the article is background and redundant with other articles. – Clockwork Soul 20:27, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

More specifically, the article content that isn't already in human papillomavirus (or a related article) is limited to the "How does HPV OncoTect work?" section, which is less than 20% of the article. What's left appears to be taken from promotional material, and is either vague or written as an advertisement. – Clockwork Soul 00:00, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article appears to be well-referenced, and it doesn't appear to be redundant but instead it appears to serve the purpose of covering a specific topic. --Bxj (talk) 22:03, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I do not see any evidence that the test is notable The one good reference cited for it, 10.1309/FE70AVNY75TDDJUH, does not mention the term in the text. From pub med, it has been cited only 14 times since publication in 2005; were it important, I'd expect five times the number. There is no indication that it is an approved method in the US, let alone a standard. Looking at PubMed for the product name, I get zero hits, a pretty good proof that nobody is writing about it. The general method is elsewhere referred to by Patterson and others as "flow cytometry–fluorescence in situ hybridization" , "(flow–FISH)" , and that would be the title, not the trade name. In fact Flow-FISH get 66 hits in pub med, but almost none of them on cervical cancer, and I think it might be possible to write such an article, but it should be done from scratch,as the present article is entirely devoted to this specific non-notable application. In any case, the first 3/4 of the article is redundant and needs to be eliminated. It is a hallmark of promotional writing that it goes to a considerable degree into the importance of the general subject, which might be necessary in some context but is always unwanted here, since we will have an article on the general subject not targeted towards the particular product. DGG ( talk ) 14:56, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:19, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per DGG. Nsk92 (talk) 19:42, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per nom (me). – Clockwork Soul 00:55, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per DGG Old Al (Talk) 21:27, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 14 July 2010 (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.