Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Novus Anti-Aging Center

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. ✗plicit 00:08, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Novus Anti-Aging Center[edit]

[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 Novus Anti-Ageing center is a clinic that treats erectile dysfunction. It was founded by physician's assistant Stephanie Wolff (PA-C). The clinic offers an exome product for treatment of COVID-19.

[1] is a press release
[2] clarifies that Wolff is a nutritionist.
[3] is a press released
[4] is a press release that does not mention Novus
[5] does not mention Novus
[6] does not mention Novus
[7] does not mention Novus
[8] does not mention Novus
[9] is a promotional video by the subject called WATCH THIS If Your ED Treatments Have NOT WORKED YET!.

The LA Times has a different take and cites an FDA article that warns that "certain clinics across the country" offering exosome products to patients "deceive patients with unsubstantiated claims". Vexations (talk) 20:40, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(Expand) It is perhaps unnecessary to point out that the applicable subject-specific guideline for an organization such as Novus is WP:NORG, and that none of the criteria specified in that guideline are met, since there is no significant coverage of the company in independent, reliable sources. Vexations (talk) 17:20, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Vexations (talk) 20:40, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Vexations (talk) 20:41, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Vexations (talk) 17:21, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Vexations (talk) 17:22, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I also did a search and found no notable 3rd party coverage. -- rsjaffe 🗩 🖉 19:29, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - non-notable, only significant independent coverage whatsoever is the LA Times piece which is a debunk of many, if not all, of the clinics' claims, but even this has many other clinics as well. I would describe this as an overall non-notable subject, which if it received much more negative press, could be notable for that reason. But in the meantime, does not deserve its own article per WP:GNG and WP:NORG. — Shibbolethink ^(♔ ^♕) 22:35, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Good job by nominator clarifying the poor references. I don't see a way to make the article NPOV while finding reliable sources Royal Autumn Crest (talk) 19:38, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As per nom, poor references. Deathlibrarian (talk) 04:17, 1 January 2022 (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.