Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aerosol-PFC
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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, without prejudice against recreation in an improved form. I thought long and hard about relisting this debate to get a clearer result. In the end, however, I felt that the overall weight of the arguments given so far leans just enough on the side of deletion for me to close it as such. Please contact me (or another admin) if you'd like the current content userfied. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 23:14, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Aerosol-PFC
This strange page suffers from two major problems; it is written by someone who doesn't speak much English, and from what I can make out, is an attempt to promote a (very) new treatment for preemies with lung problems. So it has a certain original research flavor, a spam flavor (mmm, spam) and of course, it has notability problems. I will put a line or two about it in Infant respiratory distress syndrome where it belongs, so please don't vote for merge. SolidPlaid 01:39, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletions. —Espresso Addict 02:55, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
- Comment Those references look pretty solid, as long as the journals they are published in are okay. If the references check out, then this seems like a legitimate article to me, though as you say it's partially written as an advert and probably has COI-issues as well. — Ksero 03:34, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
- Weak Keep. Obviously needs a major rewrite, but judging from the references provided, appears to be a valid topic for an article. Terraxos 03:55, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
- Speedy delete as WP:COPYVIO. The first few grafs are taken from http://www.aerosol-pfc.de/4597/12002.html and I presume the remainder come directly from the cited papers. Maybe this could be an article, but not with somebody else's text. So tagged. --Dhartung | Talk 05:32, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
- Delete - merged info noted by nominator is sufficient. /Blaxthos 16:25, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
- Weak delete - it does seem like a borderline case, if the copyvio is not an issue. The papers look entirely legit, but since the main contributor is a coauthor on the cited papers, it's clearly borderline spam. Merging seems like a fair compromise. Llajwa 19:12, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
-
- My main reason for bringing to AfD is that it is not notable. It works on piglets, but it does not seem to have been tested on humans and approved for human use. Scientific results are a dime a dozen. I believe that the author is trying to promote this result on Wikipedia. SolidPlaid 01:10, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
- delete Until it gets much wider attention form others I dont even think its worth the suggested merge, but thats up to the people who want to edit there. DGG (talk) 04:40, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
- 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.
